Paul Housego, Labour Lawyer of Beers Solicitors writes about recent court decisions in regards to Tupe. Paul writes: “Tupe cases keep coming. The 2006 tupe regs brought in the concept of a “service provision change” (spc). There doesn’t need to be an economic entity which transfers and retains its identity if there is a change of service provider. Security and facilities management are classic services to which this definition applies. It is an spc to outsource, insource or transfer a contract to another contractor.
So far so good. But what if a building changes ownership, and the new owner doesn’t want the previous owner’s security firm or cleaners? You might think that as it was the same building and the same job being done, just for someone else, it is an spc.
Not so, the Employment Appeal Tribunal says in Taurus Group Ltd -v- Crofts and Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd. This follows another case (Hunter -v- McCarrick) decided earlier this year, which had more complicated facts as an insolvency was involved and the employee had worked for the new owner for a while. The Taurus case makes it clear that it is only an spc if it is the same client. If the client changes, the new one doesn’t inherit all the service providers.
This is really quite important, because it means that tupe may not apply to subcontractors when a business is sold. But watch this space – the Hunter case is going to the Court of Appeal later this year.”