Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawTUPE

Case of the week: Argyll Coastal Services Ltd v Stirling and others

by Guy Lamb 29 May 2012
by Guy Lamb 29 May 2012

Argyll Coastal Services Ltd v Stirling and others

FACTS

The claimants were 11 members of the crew of the St Brandan boat and two people who worked for the company that owned it, J&A Gardner & Co Ltd (JAG). JAG contracted with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to provide a vessel to deliver cargo to the Falklands.

The St Brandan fulfilled that contract with a crew drawn from a pool of 16, administered by two office staff employed in Scotland. The crew members were employed by Guernsey Ship Management Ltd (GMSL).

The JAG/MoD contract went out to tender in 2009 and JAG was unsuccessful. The MoD entered into an agreement with a Dutch company, Van Winjgaarden (VW), for the hire of vessels and crew. VW entered into a further agreement to hire the Tamar boat from Argyll Coastal Services Ltd and this vessel took over from the St Brandan to provide the service to the MoD.

The claimants brought claims that their contracts of employment transferred to Argyll Coastal Services Ltd, on the basis that there was a service provision change under TUPE.

DECISION

The issue in this case was whether or not there had been a service provision change under TUPE.

The claimants had to show that there had been an organised grouping of employees situated in Great Britain that had as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned on behalf of the MoD. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) observed that an organised grouping of employees indicates a number of employees that is less than the entire workforce and deliberately organised for the purpose of carrying out activities required by the particular client contract and who work together as a team. “Activities” means the service that was contracted for. The group must be based in Great Britain, albeit some members can work outside Great Britain. A claimant also has to show that he or she was assigned to the organised grouping to have a claim under TUPE.

In this case, the tribunal had failed to consider whether or not the employees were “assigned” to the organised grouping of employees. The appeal succeeded and the EAT did not need to determine whether or not there had in fact been a service provision change. However, the EAT observed that the tribunal would be required to address the following questions:




  • What, if any, organised groupings of employees existed?
  • Was there an office-based organised grouping? If so, there was no doubt that it was situated in Great Britain?
  • If there was an office-based grouping, what activities did it carry out?
  • Were the crew members part of any office-based grouping? How could that be, if they had a different employer?
  • Were the crew themselves an organised grouping of employees? If so, were they situated in Great Britain?

The EAT said that, regarding the activities carried out, the starting point would be to ask: what was the service that the client contracted for?

The EAT rejected a suggestion that an organised grouping could be made up of employees with different employers.

IMPLICATIONS

The reference to the employees being “deliberately” organised echoes the recent decision of the EAT in Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and others. In that case, it was said that the requirement of an organised grouping means that the employees must be organised by reference to the requirements of the client in question and does not apply to a situation where a group of employees may, without any deliberate intent or planning, be found to be working mostly on tasks that benefit a particular client.

The observations of the EAT suggest that the only way in which there could have been a service provision change in this case was if the two office-based employees were an organised grouping with the principal purpose of carrying out the MoD contract and the crew of the St Brandan were assigned to that grouping. That seems unlikely on the facts found by the original tribunal, but the case has been remitted to a different tribunal.

Guy Lamb, employment partner, DLA Piper








FAQs and more cases from XpertHR on TUPE



  • What constitutes a transfer of an undertaking under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006? From the XpertHR FAQs section.
  • Case law: service provision changes Read more cases on service provision changes in the XpertHR case law reports section.
  • TUPE transferee unlawfully removed sick pay and reduced holiday entitlement one year after transfer In Campbell v Martin McColl Ltd ET/1804664/2011, the employer fell into the trap of assuming that, as long as it waited for a while (one year in this case) after a TUPE transfer, it could detrimentally alter the contractual benefits of employees who had transferred, in a bid to harmonise its workforce’s terms and conditions.

Avatar
Guy Lamb

Guy Lamb is a partner at DLA Piper.

previous post
Unions hit out at plans to cut health and safety Regulations
next post
The benefits of taking a sabbatical

You may also like

Top 10 HR questions November 2023: Holiday carry-over

4 Dec 2023

Legal expert calls new holiday pay regulations ‘incoherent’

30 Nov 2023

Cruise giant accused of planning ‘fire and rehire’...

24 Nov 2023

Burges Salmon takes home 2023 Employment Law Firm...

21 Nov 2023

McDonald’s: How can employers prevent sexual harassment?

21 Nov 2023

Tesco equal pay test cases to move to...

17 Nov 2023

Minimum service levels: Work notices guidance published

16 Nov 2023

McDonald’s dismisses 18 staff following sexual harassment claims

14 Nov 2023

Unions accuse government of minimum service levels ‘red...

14 Nov 2023

UN watchdog urges action to prevent another P&O...

10 Nov 2023

  • How to spot and tackle imposter syndrome in the workplace PROMOTED | Half of all UK adults...Read more
  • BetterMe for Business: How to Build Wellness Culture at Work PROMOTED | Ever encountered a...Read more
  • Global growth with simple HR compliance (webinar) WEBINAR | In an increasingly global marketplace...Read more
  • Talent acquisition: How AI can complement a ‘back to basics’ approach PROMOTED | Artificial intelligence is now...Read more
  • What will it mean to be an HR professional in 2024? (webinar) WEBINAR | As we approach 2024...Read more
  • HR Budget Planning for 2024: Preparing your People Strategy PROMOTED | As organisations continue to adapt...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+