0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

TUPE – Organised Grouping of Employees

18 May 2012

One question often asked in a service provision change situation under TUPE is what percentage of time the employee spends working on the activity. Following Seawell v Ceva even 100% won’t necessarily result in a transfer.

Ceva Freight (UK) Limited provided a service to Seawell. Mr Moffat was employed by Ceva and worked exclusively on the Seawell account, although Ceva had other clients. Seawell brought the service in house and Ceva claimed that TUPE applied.

A service provision change requires an organised grouping of employees which must carry out activities on behalf of the client as its principal purpose. Following this case and Eddie Stobart Limited v Moreman it is not enough that the employee happens to work on a particular service for the majority (or all) of his time. The organised grouping of employees must have been deliberately formed for the purpose of carrying out the work. There will be no transfer when an employee merely happens to work solely for a particular client.

related opinions

“Caution” is now the watchword when it comes to directly awarding public sectors contracts

The judicial review proceedings brought by the Good Law Project against the Department of Health and Social Care in relation to the £108m contract the Department awarded for PPE in April are about to shine a light on Regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

View blog

Will there be a return of employment tribunal fees?

The Government is reportedly considering the reinstatement of tribunal fees in respect of employment claims.

View blog

Redundancy: competitive interview processes

In this case, the Respondent’s appeal was unsuccessful. In the first instance, the decision that it unfairly dismissed various claimants following the closure of the school where they worked. The Claimants were unsuccessful in applying for substantially similar positions at a new school that opened at the same site. Read more here.

View blog

Can an application to postpone a hearing be refused?

This case highlights the importance of Claimants obtaining their own medical evidence in such matters especially when it is pivotal to their claim.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up