Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW 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
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW 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+

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








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.

Avatar
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

Whistleblowing nurse awarded £462k for unfair dismissal

15 Jun 2022

Oxford study highlights best gig economy firms to...

9 Jun 2022

Tesco appeal against fire and rehire ban to...

8 Jun 2022

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

5 Jun 2022

P&O Ferries boss denies reputational damage after mass...

27 May 2022

Employers lack data to make IR35 worker status...

25 May 2022

Maternity leave: Cost of living crisis highlights need...

25 May 2022

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...Read more
  • Strathclyde Business School expands its Degree Apprenticeship offer in England PROMOTED | The University of Strathclyde is expanding its programmes...Read more
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW 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+