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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll