Argyll Coastal Services Ltd v Stirling & ors [2012] UKEAT 0012/11/1502

TUPE: Who is in scope?

Recent decisions highlight the need to consider carefully who is ‘in scope’ for the purposes of a TUPE transfer, warns Charles Wynn-Evans ‘The tribunal in McCririck v Channel 4 Television Corporation (1) and IMG Media Ltd (2) [2014] saw no rational basis for excluding workers, as distinct from employees, from the scope of TUPE, as …

Continue reading "TUPE: Who is in scope?"

This post is only available to members.

Service Provision Changes: EAT narrows its approach

A recent ruling means that employees may receive greater protection if they bring a claim based on the transfer of an undertaking rather than a change in service provider, argue Peter Sharp and Jill Turner ‘The correct application of TUPE is first to establish that there has been a service provision change under Reg 3(1)(b) …

Continue reading "Service Provision Changes: EAT narrows its approach"

This post is only available to members.

TUPE: Outsourcing: back to square one?

A number of recent decisions suggest that the EAT is taking a more restrictive approach to when TUPE applies to a service-provision change, report Kate Barker and Rob Collier-Wright ‘The government decided to clarify the position under UK law by introducing new provisions in reg 3(1)(b) TUPE, which made it clear that employees will transfer …

Continue reading "TUPE: Outsourcing: back to square one?"

This post is only available to members.