[2001] IRLR 144, EAT on 30th November 2000.
NOTES

  • Cheesman & ors v R. Brewer Contracts Ltd [2001] IRLR, 144, EAT on 30th November 2000
  • Full text of the EAT judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website.

    Representation:-

  • Mr B. Langstaff QC and Miss J. Eady instructed by Legal Department, UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ for the Apellants, Mr Cheesman & Others
  • Mr Brian Napier instructed by Messrs Biddle, 1 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7BU for the Appellant, Onyx UK Ltd
  • Mr T. Pitt-Payne instructed by the Director of Industrial Relations, Construction Confederation, Construction House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4JX for the Respondents, R Brewer Contracts Ltd

    The judgment in this case contains useful guidance on the points to be taken into account in considering whether, for the purposes of the 1981 TUPE regulations there exists "an undertaking" and if so whether there has been a "relevant transfer" of it.

    In particular it stresses the need to identify a "stable economic entity" in deciding whether for an "undertaking" exists within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 SI 1981/1794 (see TUPE regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1794) reg 2 and TUPE regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1794) reg 3)

    A "stable economic entity" is an organised grouping of persons and assets enabling or facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective. This case shows that in deciding whether there is "stable economic entity" emphasis should be placed on the way in which work is organised rather than on whether there is an activity or a service as it is quite possible for there to be an activity or a service which is not an economic entity.

    For relevant notes please go to:-

    and see also the notes on the subsequent ECJ case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi & anr 2001 and on Fairhurst Ward Abbotts Ltd v Botes Building Ltd & ors CA 2004 EWCA Civ 83.

    FINISH>
    prepared Jan2001.