header-logo header-logo

Transferring the blame?

28 October 2016 / John McMullen
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7720_mcmullen

John McMullen examines the conditions of TUPE

  • The purpose of the organised grouping.
  • The “same client” rule.
  • Whether an employee is assigned to an organised grouping.

For a service provision change TUPE transfer under reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (2006/246) a number of conditions must be met. First, the activities changing hands, the subject of the service provision change, must remain fundamentally the same in the hands of the new provider, as they were in the hands of the outgoing provider (TUPE, reg 3(2A)). Second, immediately before the service provision change, it must be established that the client intends that the activities changing hands will, following the service provision change, be carried out by the transferee other than in connection with a single specific event or task of short term duration (TUPE, reg 3(3)(a)(ii)). Third, the activities concerned must not consist wholly or mainly of the supply of goods for the client’s use (TUPE, reg 3(3)(b)). Fourth, there must have been, “immediately before” the change,

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