header-logo header-logo

Special assignment

07 December 2012 / John McMullen
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail
istock_000019359930medium_4

John McMullen casts an eye over the court’s approach to team participation & service provision change under TUPE

In broad terms (and subject to some express exclusions), whether there is a relevant transfer by way of service provision change (SPC) under reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 depends on whether “activities” on behalf of a client have ceased to be carried out by one person (either a client on its own behalf, or a contractor) and are, instead, carried out by another person on that client’s behalf.

A pre-condition, however, is that, immediately before the SPC, there must have been an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which was to carry out those activities on behalf of the client (reg 3(3)(a)(i)). This article examines the rigour with which this provision is required to be examined. It is also to be stressed that it is not enough for the employee to point out that the organised grouping exists before the SPC. The employee must be

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll