header-logo header-logo

The transfer window

02 June 2017 / John McMullen
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7748_mcmullen

John McMullen covers the recent developments relating to TUPE

  • Service provision change: the ‘principal purpose’ of an ‘organised grouping of employees’.
  • The interface between redundancy & TUPE.
  • The consequences of providing incorrect employee liability information.

A trio of cases from the Employment Appeal Tribunal highlights a number of topical issues in the interpretation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE).

Service provision change

In order for there to be a service provision change TUPE transfer within the meaning of TUPE, reg 3(1)(b), there must be, by virtue of reg 3(3)(a)(i), prior to the change of provider, an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which is to carry out the activities concerned on behalf of the client. The correct approach to be adopted to the determination of ‘principal purpose’ was the issue in Tees Esk & Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Harland UK EAT/0173/16/DM.

In this case the claimant employees were employed by the Trust as part of an organised grouping of employees

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