Analysis and commentary by Reed Smith attorneys on developments in employment and labor law
Time after time, businesses are faced with (and use themselves) the classic argument in TUPE negotiations: “Of course the employee must transfer under TUPE – he spends more than 50% of his time on the transferring service”.
It is a very convenient and much rolled-out line of reasoning, which can work in both directions (“Of…
Imagine a scenario where one employee spends 100% of his time working for one client. That client takes its services back in-house. Does the employee transfer to the client under TUPE?
The instinctive answer might be yes – but that will not always be right. A recent decision of the Scottish Court of Session demonstrates that it is always important to go back to the wording of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) and, specifically, always consider whether there is an “organised grouping of employees […] which has as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned […]” (regulation 3(a) TUPE).…
In Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and another UKEATS/0034/11, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that an employee who spent 100% of his time working for a single client was not an “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). Therefore when the client brought in-house work previously carried out by the Claimant’s employer, there was no service provision change.
…
Continue Reading Service provision changes: Is an employee who works only for one client an “organised grouping of employees”?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Johnson Controls v Campbell and Anor that there was no service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) where a centralised taxi booking service was brought back in-house by the client. Although the client was still undertaking the activity of booking taxis, there was no “centralised service” in place following the transfer. As a result, there was held to be an essentially different activity in place and TUPE did not apply.
This case follows another recent decision in Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Hamshaw and others which held that where care services transferred from the Trust to new providers there was not a service provision change because the services were not fundamentally or essentially the same, owing to the methods used to provide them.…
Continue Reading TUPE: Service Provision Changes and what activities transfer
In Abellio London Ltd (Formerly Travel London Ltd) v Musse and others UKEAT 0283/11 and 0631/11, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) ruled that a relocation of six miles within central London which resulted in the employees having to travel an extra one to two hours to work following a service provision change amounted to a substantial change to employees’ working conditions to their material detriment entitling them to resign under regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). As regulation 4(9) of TUPE deems an employee’s resignation to be a “dismissal” where it is in response to such a change, the employees concerned were entitled to claim automatic unfair dismissal and liability for their dismissals passed to the transferee. Since it would not have mattered had the contracts of employment contained valid mobility clauses, the decision is not good news for transferees in TUPE transfer situations. The decision sets a very low hurdle for employees to overcome in order to be able to resign in reliance on regulation 4(9) of TUPE. Transferees will need to consider the extent of this risk when negotiating transfer provisions with the transferor, and, if necessary, seek indemnity protection.
…
Continue Reading Service provision changes: Relocation because of TUPE transfer was a substantial change to employees’ material detriment
In the case of Eddie Stobart v Moreman & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome guidance on the meaning of “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of a “service provision change” under regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). A group of employees who happened to work mainly for a particular client because they worked the day shift were found not to comprise an “organised grouping of employees” for “service provision change” purposes under TUPE. The EAT held that, when assessing whether employees will transfer to a new contractor following a service provision change, it is necessary to identify the existence of an “organised grouping of employees” the principal purpose of which is to carry out the relevant activities on behalf of the client, before analysing whether employees are assigned to that group. There will only be an “organised grouping” where the employees in question are “organised” for the purposes of the provision of services to the relevant client.
…
Continue Reading Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”
A service provision change does not occur under TUPE where there is a change in the client on whose behalf the services are being carried out. This is the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Hunter v McCarrick, the first EAT decision to rule on this issue. The decision does not come as a great surprise but it provides welcome clarification on a point which occasionally arises in outsourcing situations.
What happened in this case
The Claimant (Mr McCarrick) brought an unfair dismissal claim against the Respondent (Mr Hunter) when he was dismissed on 8 March 2010 after having allegedly been employed by Mr Hunter for 7 months since August 2009. Since 2005, Mr McCarrick’s job was to manage a property portfolio owned by Waterbridge Group (WG)(of which Mr Hunter was Managing Director). In order to succeed in his claim against Mr Hunter, Mr McCarrick needed to show that he had at least one year’s continuous employment and that his employment had transferred to Mr Hunter under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) from his previous employers.…
Continue Reading UK TUPE: No service provision change where client changes identity
In Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley and ors and Angel Services (UK) Ltd v Hambley and ors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned an Employment Tribunal’s finding that where a service provision contract is performed by one company and is taken over by two companies, the liability for transferred employees should be apportioned between the two companies.
This is an important case, as it is the first guidance to be given by the EAT on the effect of service provision changes under TUPE.…
Continue Reading EAT gives guidance on how TUPE applies to service provision changes
