For there to be a TUPE transfer by way of a Service Provision Change, there must be an "organised group" of employees carrying out the activities in question. It is not enough that by chance (for example due to shift-patterns) a number of employees find working on tasks to benefit a particular client but without any deliberate planning or intent that they do so.
Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman & Ors - TUPE, service provision changes, and the need for an "organised grouping of employees"
EAT - 17/02/12
Subscribe to Emplaw Professional now to get the full benefit of our news service
Subscribers to emplaw professional get full access to our news service, along with 5,000 pages of comprehensive, up-to-date information, covering all aspects of employment law in our Law Guide.
To read the full content of the above article, including links to relevant web sites and Law Guide pages, you can subscribe today to one of our daily, monthly or annual packages.
You can also sign-up to our e-PSL email newsletter, which will keep you up-to-date with the latest developments every week.
Other articles in Cases - Employment Appeal Tribunal:
-
Richardson v Canterbury College - judge should have considered that tribunal's letter was arguably ambiguous
In most cases a litigant cannot claim that they do not understand an order made by a tribunal if its terms are perfectly clear and if it is unreasonable for them to understand it in the way they suggest. However there may be exceptional circumstances where aan alternative understanding may be genuinely and reasonably held - and a judge must consider this relevant factor when considering strike-out for failure to comply.
Read More. -
Blair & Ors v Hotel Solutions London Ltd - no requirement to work overtime, so no entitlement to be paid overtime
If a contract provides that overtime is voluntary and can only be worked on the employer's request, then an employee cannot somehow create an entitlement to overtime payment simply by working (without being required to do so) longer than their set hours.
Read More. -
UNISON v Kelly & Ors - trade union officials and unjustified disciplinary action
A trade union can only justifiably discipline its members or officials for reasons within sections 64 and 65 TULR(C)A 1992. To discipline officials ostensibly for causing unintended offence, when the real reason appeared to be that those officials had criticised the Standing Orders Committee, was completely unjustified - provided they act in good faith, union members are protected in criticising their own unions for failing to follow its own rules.
Read More. -
Forthcoming cases in the EAT for week commencing 20th February 2012
The Cause Lists, showing cases listed for hearing during week commencing 20th February 2012 in the EAT in England & Wales.
Read More. -
Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman & Ors - TUPE, service provision changes, and the need for an "organised grouping of employees"
For there to be a TUPE transfer by way of a Service Provision Change, there must be an "organised group" of employees carrying out the activities in question. It is not enough that by chance (for example due to shift-patterns) a number of employees find working on tasks to benefit a particular client but without any deliberate planning or intent that they do so.
Read More. -
Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard - employer must "genuinely apply mind" to selection of pool for redundancies
It is for an employer to chose the correct pool from which to select employees for redundancy: it will be difficult for an employment tribunal to rule that this selection was wrong or unfair unless it can be shown that the employer failed to "genuinely apply his mind" to the identification of the pool. Whether this has occurred is for an employment tribunal to determine.
Read More.
