Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Service provision changesEmployment lawFit notesTUPE

Case of the week: Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and others

by Mary Clarke 3 Apr 2012
by Mary Clarke 3 Apr 2012

Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and others

FACTS

Eddie Stobart Ltd (Stobart) operated a meat warehouse. Originally, the company had contracts with five suppliers at the site, but by 2009 only two remained: Forza, which supplied meat to Asda; and Vion, which supplied meat to various supermarkets. Retailers had various arrangements for when orders would be placed, resulting in night-shift employees working primarily on the Forza contract and day-shift workers working primarily on the Vion contract.

In 2009, the site closed and it was Stobart’s belief that Vion arranged for the work to be taken over by another logistics business, FJG Logistics Ltd (FJG). Stobart took the view that this was a service provision change under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE), as the work in question had been carried out by an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was to carry out the work required by the Vion contract and the contracts of those employees transferred to FJG.

Stobart identified employees who spent 50% or more of their time performing Vion work and notified them that they would transfer. FJG did not accept that there had been a service provision change. The employees brought tribunal claims and at a pre-hearing review the employment judge determined whether or not to strike out the tribunal claims.

DECISION

The employment tribunal held that there had been no service provision change from Stobart to FJG. He said that the fact that the employees spent the majority, or indeed all, of their time on a particular task for a particular customer was not in itself evidence of an organised grouping of employees. The organisation of work was not by reference to the customers, but by reference to the shift system. The fact that many of the staff found themselves working exclusively on work necessitated by the Vion contract was a function of the time of day that Vion’s customers chose to place their orders, not of the organisation of the work so that there were teams dedicated to that contract. The employees could not say that they regarded themselves as being assigned to one contract. There was no reasonable prospect of success in establishing the existence of an organised grouping of employees.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed. The requirement of an organised grouping necessarily connotes that the employees be organised by reference to the requirements of the client in question. It 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. If the grouping does not reflect any existing organisational unit, there are liable to be real practical difficulties in identifying which employees belong to it. The EAT considered it important that, on a transfer, employees should know where they stand.

IMPLICATIONS

This is a surprising decision. The Government’s guidance observes that the “organised grouping” condition is meant to confine TUPE to situations where the outgoing service provider has in place a team of employees “essentially dedicated” to carrying out the activities that are to transfer, which would suggest that the mere fact of actually doing the work in question is sufficient.

However, this case clearly states that something more is needed, although it is not entirely clear what. There is some implication that the employees must know that they are working on, for example, “contract A”. This will remove TUPE protection for a lot of employees in the logistics industry, where it is rare to have identified, client-dedicated teams.

The most important practical implication is that employers that have employees working on contracts where the expectation is that, if the contract goes elsewhere, the employees would transfer with it should ensure that there is a clear organised grouping of employees on that contract, for example by designating and referring to them as “contract A workers” or in some way identifying them as a “team”.

Mary Clarke, partner, DLA Piper

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.








Practical guidance from XpertHR on TUPE transfers



  • 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 in this case 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.

Mary Clarke

Mary Clarke is a partner at DLA Piper.

previous post
Occupational health research round-up – April 2012
next post
StepStone buys Totaljobs Group for £110 million

You may also like

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Employment Rights Bill must be tightened to protect...

1 May 2025

Lords criticise ‘opaque’, ‘on-the-hoof’ Employment Rights Bill

30 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+