John McMullen provides a round-up of recent TUPE case law
In Qlog Ltd v O’Brien and Others (UKEAT/0301/13/JOJ) the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the test, under the service provision change rules in reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE), that the activities undertaken before and after the service provision change are required to be “fundamentally the same”. This requirement is now enshrined in TUPE, reg 3(2A).
However, this amendment to TUPE, made by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/16) simply codifies previous case law on the point and therefore the Qlog case remains a useful illustration of how the test works.
Background & facts
The facts in this case were that Ribble is an independent converter and manufacturer of cardboard packaging. It needed assistance in the transfer and delivery of its goods from Oldham to its customers throughout the UK. It had an agreement with McCarthy Haulage Limited to deliver bulk loads of products to customers. It employed drivers, a transport manager and four shunters.
Ribble
