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+

Case lawEmployment lawTUPE

TUPE and secondment: Capita Health Solutions v BBC and McLean – case of the week

by Personnel Today 18 Jun 2008
by Personnel Today 18 Jun 2008

Capita Health Solutions v BBC and McLean

FACTS Mrs McLean was employed by the BBC as an occupational health nurse. In February 2006, it announced that it was transferring its occupational health service to Capita Health Solutions (Capita) on 1 April 2006. This meant that McLean’s employment would transfer to Capita under the 1981 TUPE regulations on this date.

Those regulations have since been replaced by the 2006 version, but the point is still valid. McLean did not wish to transfer to Capita and she raised a grievance with the BBC, which was rejected. The corporation wrote to McLean stating that if she did not wish to transfer to Capita it proposed to second her to Capita while she worked out a six-week notice period. The broadcaster said that McLean would continue to be employed by the BBC for that six-week period and that she would be working with Capita to help the transition of the OH service.

In reply, she wrote that she was unwilling to transfer, under TUPE regulations, to Capita but would do the handover. She said her employment would therefore terminate on 12 May 2006, and the BBC confirmed that she would remain a BBC employee until 12 May but would be seconded to Capita from 1 April to 12 May.

On 1 April, the BBC’s occupational health service was transferred to Capita. McLean carried out her agreed duties for the BBC until 12 May when her employment ended. She issued an employment tribunal claim, which was appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had to determine whether, a) her employment had transferred under TUPE to Capita or, b) she had validly objected to the transfer and had remained a BBC employee.

DECISION The employment tribunal found that McLean’s employment had transferred to Capita, and the EAT agreed. It said she had not validly objected to being transferred to Capita. In fact, she had been prepared to work for Capita for six weeks.

But the EAT said that even if she had validly objected, her employment with the BBC could not have continued past 1 April. The EAT said TUPE does not allow the employment of objecting employees to continue after the date when they would have transferred. The parties cannot validly agree to alter this, such as by secondment.

IMPLICATIONS This case undermines the idea of seconding a person who would have transferred under TUPE, since the objection mechanism is often used as part of such secondment paperwork. It also confirms that if employees validly object to their TUPE transfer then their employment will end when it would have transferred.

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.

Plus, it demonstrates how the parties to a transfer cannot try to adjust the workings of TUPE by, for example, agreeing their own arrangements about transfer date or what happens to people who object. So, transferee employers should be careful if employees appear to object yet are kept-on by the transferor employer, doing unchanged work: in that situation, regardless of what the parties agree, those people’s employment will pass to the transferee.

Jonathan Hearn, legal director, DLA Piper

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Ensuring gangmasters are working within the law
next post
Cancer policies leave firms uncovered

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

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

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

  • 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+