Time for change

• The Salvation Army Trustee Company v Coventry Cyrenians Limited : obiter, the EAT raises some fascinating issues on the better (alternative) resolution of TUPE disputes.

By virtue of reg 3(2A) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246), for a service provision change, the activities being carried out by another person in succession to a previous provider (or client) must be activities which are “fundamentally the same” as the activities carried out by the person who has ceased to carry them out. This rule was introduced by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/16) and is a consolidation of a previous case law rule (see, eg, Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) UKEAT/0286/08/RN) to this effect. This was the provision under consideration in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of The Salvation Army Trustee Company v Coventry Cyrenians Limited UKEAT/0120/16/RN. Obiter, the EAT also raises some fascinating issues