header-logo header-logo

18 September 2009 / John McMullen
Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Shifting staff

John McMullen sheds light on recent TUPE conundrums

A number of material cases have been decided in the UK on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) which are of considerable interest, particularly those on the new service provision change rules under reg 3(1)(b) of TUPE.

The first case on the new rules on service provision change in reg 3(1)(b) was an employment tribunal decision in Hunt v Storm Communications Ltd, Wild Card Public Relations Ltd and Brown Brothers Wines (Europe) Ltd (Case No 2702546/2006). Storm Communications was a public relations service provider. Brown Brothers Wines (BBW) was its client.

In June 2006, BBW gave Storm notice that it was re-tendering for the provision of public relations services. Storm lost the pitch and the work went, on the re-tender with effect from 1 September 2006, to Wild Card. The claimant had an employment contract as account manager.

Her job description made no specific reference to any particular client, but she started working on the BBW account from the outset of her employment

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll