header-logo header-logo

07 December 2012 / John McMullen
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

Special assignment

istock_000019359930medium_4

John McMullen casts an eye over the court’s approach to team participation & service provision change under TUPE

In broad terms (and subject to some express exclusions), whether there is a relevant transfer by way of service provision change (SPC) under reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 depends on whether “activities” on behalf of a client have ceased to be carried out by one person (either a client on its own behalf, or a contractor) and are, instead, carried out by another person on that client’s behalf.

A pre-condition, however, is that, immediately before the SPC, there must have been an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which was to carry out those activities on behalf of the client (reg 3(3)(a)(i)). This article examines the rigour with which this provision is required to be examined. It is also to be stressed that it is not enough for the employee to point out that the organised grouping exists before the SPC. The employee must be part of that team; ie, by virtue of reg 4(1)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll