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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
