TUPE

Jeffrey Jupp's TUPE resource

Johnson Controls Ltd v Campbell EAT

| 0 comments

In Metropolitan Resources Ltd and Kimberley Group Housing the importance of identifying the ‘activity’ in a Reg 3(1)(b) service provision change transfer was stressed. This case provides an example of this.

The facts

C was engaged by JC Ltd as a taxi administrator. His job, as it had evolved, comprised: takings bookings from members of staff of UKAEA; advising on the timings for the journeys they wished to undertake; reviewing booking data; combining jobs and pick-ups to ensure the best use of available transport; allocating jobs to subcontractors (two taxi companies were regularly used for the purpose); checking the invoices from those subcontractors against the orders of UKAEA; dealing with booking queries; entering the costs of the subcontractors onto a database; carrying out checks on suppliers, and; arranging for security passes for suppliers. In 2010 the UKAEA decided to discontinue this centralised taxi booking service with JC Ltd and instead secretaries at UKAEA would book taxis. UKAEA ended its contract with JC Ltd. JC Ltd claimed that UKAEA had taken the service in house and C should transfer to them. The ET disagreed. It held that there was no transfer because the ‘activity’ of centralised booking was not being carried out by anyone.

The EAT

The EAT upheld the ET’s decision. Whether or not an activity continues before and after transfer is a question of fact and degree. There was nothing perverse in the ET deciding that here the activity had not transferred. The centralised coordinated activity was no longer being undertaken albeit that component parts of it were.

Link to Judgment

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply