Hard to crack?

John McMullen tackles TUPE’s “gold-plated” SPC rules

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published its call for views on the effectiveness of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) last November. It stated that “some” businesses believe TUPE to be “gold-plated” and “over-bureaucratic”. When “gold-plating” is mentioned, we know which aspect of TUPE appears first in the crosshairs—the service provision change (SPC) rules under reg 3(1)(b).

Regulation 3(1)(b) provides that a relevant transfer may include: “A situation in which:

activities cease to be carried on by a person (“a client”) on his behalf and are carried out instead by another person on the client’s behalf (“a contractor”);
activities cease to be carried out by a contractor on a client’s behalf (whether or not those activities had previously been carried out by the client on his own behalf) and are carried out instead by another person (“a subsequent contractor”) on the client’s behalf; or
activities cease to be carried out by a contractor on a client’s behalf (whether

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

Hard to crack?

John McMullen tackles TUPE’s “gold-plated” SPC rules

Regulation 3(1)(b) provides that a relevant transfer may include: “A situation in which:

activities cease to be carried on by a person (“a client”) on his behalf and are carried out instead by another person on the client’s behalf (“a contractor”);
activities cease to be carried out by a contractor on a client’s behalf (whether or not those activities had previously been carried out by the client on his own behalf) and are carried out instead by another person (“a subsequent contractor”) on the client’s behalf; or
activities cease to be carried out by a contractor on a client’s behalf (whether

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

Error message

Hard to crack?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green