Tag Archives: service provision change

The end of the “percentage argument” in TUPE negotiations?

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 … Continue Reading

When is an organised grouping of employees not an organised grouping of employees? (UK TUPE update)

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 … Continue Reading

Service provision changes: Is an employee who works only for one client an “organised grouping of employees”?

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 … Continue Reading

TUPE: Service Provision Changes and what activities transfer

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, … Continue Reading

Service provision changes: Relocation because of TUPE transfer was a substantial change to employees’ material detriment

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 … Continue Reading

Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”

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 … Continue Reading

EAT gives guidance on how TUPE applies to service provision changes

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 … Continue Reading
LexBlog