This another case emphasising the need in a Reg 3(1)(b) Service Provision Change (SPC) case for the ET to clearly define the ‘organised grouping’ of employees required by Reg 3(3) and to determine whether the Claimant has been assigned to … Continue reading →

This is a Service Provision Change Case (SPC). At issue was: (i) Whether the same activities that were being performed by the transferor continued to be performed by the transferee and, if they did; (ii) Whether the Claimants were assigned to … Continue reading →

Two important Service Provision change (SPC)  concepts were considered in this case:  (1) Whether services were provided to the same client before and after transfer, and; (2)  Whether the client intended that the task be of a short term duration. … Continue reading →

This case is concerned with Reg 3(1)(b)(ii) and whether the activities carried on before and after transfer are fundamentally or essentially the same.  The interesting feature of the case is that the manner of providing the services after the transfer was radically … Continue reading →

The issue in this case principally concerns the meaning of Reg 3(3) and the intention of the client that activities following the transfer will be carried out by the transferee other than in connection with a single specific event or … Continue reading →

This case raises two points on Reg 3(1)(b) Service Provision Changes (SPCs). First, If there is no contractual obligation on the contractor to perform particular work for the client before the transfer but that work is nevertheless undertaken, do the … Continue reading →