TUPE does not apply when a service is conducted in an altogether different manner following a changeover.Johnson Controls Ltd v Campbell & Anor (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2012] UKEAT 0041_12_1402 | |||
www.workrep.co.uk | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
|
19/04/2012 The EAT in Johnson Controls v UK Atomic Energy Authority has ruled that TUPE does not apply when a service is conducted in an altogether different manner following a changeover. There are no hard and fast rules so each case must be assessed individually as to the facts by the employment tribunal. The claimant taxi administrator employed by Johnson Controls claimed a TUPE transfer when United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority started booking its own taxis in-house using its own secretaries dealing directly with taxi companies. The centralised taxi booking service therefore disappeared. The ET decided that the post change service was different to that carried out formerly so that no TUPE transfer occurred and the EAT concurred. The guidelines of Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-Up Ltd were applied whereby the defining of activities involved and of their sameness to the previous work is a question of fact which the ET decides. Cases quoted: Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd [2009] ICR 1380Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley and Ors [2008] ICR 1030 Clearsprings Management Ltd v Ankers and Ors UKEAT/0054/08 OCS Group UK Ltd v Jones and Anor UKEAT/0038/09 Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-Up Ltd and Ors UKEAT/0462/10 |
|||
| Transcript of the judgement:- Johnson Controls Ltd v Campbell & Anor (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2012] UKEAT 0041_12_1402 |
|
||
| 2012 The Reversed burden of proof in discrimination cases - Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd (Sex Discrimination) [2012] UKEAT 0270_11_2802 A TUPE transfer needs the employee's consent - Gabriel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd & Anor [2012] UKEAT 0190_11_2302 The date that an employee resigns is to be taken as the effective date of termination (EDT) - Horwood v Lincolnshire County Council [2012] UKEAT 0462_11_0304 Ignoring costs warning letters can be taken as unreasonable conduct - Peat & Ors v Birmingham City Council (Practice and Procedure : Costs) [2012] UKEAT 0503_11_1004 TUPE guidance, and Regulation 4 - Argyll Coastal Services Ltd v Stirling & Ors TUPE [2012] UKEAT 0012_11_1502 An employee who holds confidential information about a competitor that he hopes to work for does not need to inform his existing employer. To do so would mean being in breach of confidence to the new employer. - Customer Systems Plc v Ranson & Ors [2011] EWHC 3304 (QB) UKEAT There is no single definition regarding domestic workers treated as family members and thus exempt from the National Minimum Wage. - Chamsi-Pasha v Udin [2011] UKEAT 0070_11_0812 & Julio & ors v Jose [2011] UKEAT Equality Act 2010 claimants (formerly claiming under Equal Pay Act 1970 and Sex Discrimination Act) can choose to bring claims in court or the employment tribunal. - Birmingham City Council v Abdulla & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1412 Where there was no prejudice to the claimant, the employment tribunal could substitute its reason for the dismissal which was different to that pleaded in the ET3 - Screene v Seatwave Ltd (Unfair Dismissal) [2011] UKEAT 0020_11_2605 Even in a redundancy situation vacancies must be considered throughout the consultation period - King v Royal Bank Of Canada Europe Ltd [2011] UKEAT 0333_10_1810 Refusing to increase a protected payment was not an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to the Employment Rights Act ( ERA ) 1996 - Barts and the London NHS Trust v Verma [2011] EWCA Civ 1129 A new offer of employment must for the purposes of mitigation and compensation be considered seriously by a claimant. - Debique v Ministry Of Defence [2011] UKEAT 0075_11_1509 Pre-trial publicity may affect the possibility of costs being awarded against a claimant in the EAT. - Iteshi v Office of Water Services (Ofwat) [2011] UKEAT 0178_11_2209 Having a corporate financial interest in the outcome or being a governor of a body equates with apparent bias in ones own case - Kaur, R (on the application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1168 The CJEU Advocate General advises that Part-time Judges are workers and that discrimination against different types of judges is not allowed. - O'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC 34 Costs are compensatory not punitive and reflect the "effect" of the conduct in question" - Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2011] EWCA Civ 1255 |
|||
| If you have a problem at work over harassment, disability, sex, age, race discrimination or bullying or are seeking compensation or reinstatement for unfair or constructive dismissal then contact workrep for an evaluation of your case. We can also advise you on equal pay, TUPE or employment status. Often an employee will come to us over a breach of contract by their employer or for issues concerning whistleblowing. If your employer has made you redundant you might in fact have been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed. If you have any other employment issues don't hesitate to contact WorkRep. You do not need to accept being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work. If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work |
|||
|
© 2011 Workrep | |||