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 lawTUPEUnfair dismissal

Case of the week: Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and another

by Benedict Gorner 7 Aug 2012
by Benedict Gorner 7 Aug 2012

Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and another

FACTS

Ceva is a freight forwarding and management logistics business. Ceva employed Mr Moffat as a logistics coordinator at its warehouse in Dyce. The workforce at Dyce was organised into two teams: inbound and outbound. Mr Moffat was in the outbound group.

From 2008, Ceva provided services to Seawell Ltd. Ceva received and stored goods for Seawell at the warehouse and shipped them to offshore oil-drilling platforms. Mr Moffat spent 100% of his time on the Seawell contract. His manager, another manager and two warehousemen each spent between 10% and 30% of their time on the contract.

From 2009, Seawell took the storage and supply back in-house. Ceva asserted that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) applied and that Mr Moffat’s employment transferred to Seawell. Seawell denied this. Mr Moffat brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

DECISION

The question arose whether or not there had been a service provision change under TUPE, specifically whether or not there was “an organised grouping of employees which has as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned on behalf of the client”.

The employment tribunal considered that the service provided was the logistics coordination and freight-forwarding arrangements necessary to supply of goods and materials to the platforms. The tribunal held that Mr Moffat was an “organised grouping” who had as his principal purpose the carrying out of the activity. Alternatively, the organised grouping was Mr Moffat, the managers and warehousemen, but only Mr Moffat was assigned to the grouping.

Seawell appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal. The EAT said that “organised grouping of employees” suggests a deliberate putting together of a group of employees for the purpose of the relevant client work. It is not a matter of “happenstance”. The only deliberately organised grouping was that of “inbound” and “outbound”, and the outbound grouping did not have as its principal purpose the carrying out of activities on behalf of Seawell.

The EAT said that it was not sufficient that Mr Moffat spent 100% of his time on the Seawell contract. The fact that a particular employee happens to spend all of his or her time on one contract does not show that he or she is an organised grouping. There was no indication that Ceva specifically formed a grouping consisting of Mr Moffat to carry out the Seawell work. Mr Moffat was not carrying out the “activities concerned”, although he carried out part of them. Mr Moffat, the managers and warehousemen were not an organised grouping and, even if they had been, it did not follow that Mr Moffat was assigned to it. The fact that an employee happens to be doing particular work does not show that the employer assigned him to a grouping that was organised for the purpose of carrying it out.

IMPLICATIONS

This case confirms the position taken by the EAT in the recent cases of Eddie Stobart v Moreman and Argyll Coastal Services v Stirling. Previously, it had been understood (following guidance from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) that, if there was an employee or group of employees “essentially dedicated” to the contract in question, there was an organised grouping.

However, these cases establish that something more is needed; some kind of deliberate organising of the employees by the employer, possibly even that the employees must be designated as or understand themselves to be working on the particular client contract.

The implication of this could be to take many employees, particularly in the logistics industry, outside the scope of TUPE unless industry practices change. This could result in service providers being left with employees whom all the parties had assumed would transfer with the contract.

Benedict Gorner, 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.

Benedict Gorner

previous post
Muslim employee ‘forced to resign’ after wearing headscarf to work
next post
Sickness during annual leave – not as bad as it seems for employers

You may also like

Sighing in frustration at colleague was discriminatory, employment...

23 May 2025

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 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+