header-logo header-logo

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

Special assignment

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll