header-logo header-logo

27 September 2018 / John McMullen
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

TUPE roundup: latest caselaw

From fragmentation to automatically unfair dismissal, John McMullen serves up some recent caselaw

  • Covers cases on fragmentation, random allocation, reg 3(5) and automatically unfair dismissal in relation to TUPE.

Service provision change, the transfer of public administrative functions and automatic unfair dismissal all feature in this autumn round up for TUPE aficionados.

Service provision change

A service provision change TUPE transfer occurs when activities carried out by one provider are taken over by a new provider, as long as there was, immediately before the change, an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which was to carry out the relevant activities for the client (TUPE, Reg 3 (1) (b)).

When one provider is replaced by another provider the position is quite simple. But the position can be more complex where a single provider is replaced by multiple providers. In principle, TUPE may still apply, but not, the case law says, where, as a result of the change, the services are fragmented, and randomly allocated among new providers. This was the subject matter

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