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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll