EAT Transfer of Undertakings : The approach to be adopted by an Employment Tribunal to the identification of a transfer by way of service provision change for the purposes of reg. 3(1)(b) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/246.
Upholding the Employment Tribunal’s judgment: applying Metropolitan Resources Limited v Churchill Dulwich Ltd, Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-up Ltd and Johnson Controls v UK Atomic Energy Authority, the identification of the ‘activities’ undertaken before and after the provision change was a matter of fact and degree for the Tribunal. It had been entitled to rely on the contractual documentation between the parties and no error of law was disclosed.
Natural Justice
As a subsidiary point, although it would have been preferable if the parties had been afforded the opportunity to make representations on the 2005 Government Consultation document referred to in the Employment Tribunal’s judgment, it was not central to the reasoning but merely served to amplify or underline other points that had been the subject of argument in any event. Moreover, had the parties been able to make such representations, this would have made no difference to the outcome. Applying Stanley Cole Ltd v Sheridan [2003] ICR 1449, CA, the parties had not been deprived of a fair hearing.
Eadt QC J
[2014] UKEAT 0301 – 13 – 2103
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 3(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd and Others EAT 24-Jun-2009
metro_churchillEAT2009
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Transfer
Migrant Helpline, on behalf of the Home Office; had a contract with Churchill Dulwich Ltd – in Liquidation (‘CD’) by which CD provided accommodation to asylum seekers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523028