Backed by their trade union, Unison, a 2017 hearing occurred for the workers who claimed there had been a TYPE transfer of their contracts to London Care and Care watch. The London Central Employment Tribunal found that a TYPE transfer had occurred when Seaware ended its contract.
London Care and Care watch appealed on four grounds, including that the relevant activity was so fragmented as to preclude any finding of a service provision change, that the employees were not an organized grouping of employees that has as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned on behalf of the client, and that each claimant was not assigned to such an organized grouping. He added that they carried out separate care packages and standalone activity that was too fragmented to fall under TYPE.
The case followed a Court of Appeal decision last July that found businesses should consult unions before making changes to contracts affecting their members. There, two park police officers were made redundant by the London Borough of Wands worth, and an employment tribunal decided that, not only could the two men bring unfair dismissal claims, Unison could also bring a claim for the borough’s failure to consult on the redundancies.
Alison Weather head offers advice to employers on matching terms and conditions, restrictive covenants and minimum wage breaches The individuals who were engaged to provide the care claimed that their employment transferred to Pulse under the provisions of TYPE.
Pulse therefore claimed that the ‘mutuality of obligation’ necessary for an employment relationship did not exist. The employment tribunal disagreed that this reflected the reality of the situation, highlighting the fact that the claimants had worked fixed hours on a regular basis over a number of years.
The judge highlighted the evidence demonstrating the critical nature of the care package provided by the claimants and the importance of maintaining an established team of carers for the client. In the judge’s view, it was fanciful to suppose that Care watch relied on ad hoc arrangements in the provision of such a package.
This decision reflects the willingness of the courts and tribunals, particularly since the decision of the Supreme Court in Autoclave v Belcher, to look beyond the terms of the written agreement to assess the true nature of the relationship between the parties. However, employers should be very cautious in relying on such contracts if they do not reflect the reality of the arrangement between the parties.
If a group of people are employed under zero hours contracts and are treated as a 'bank' of staff who work only when needed, do they qualify as 'employees' for the purposes of TYPE and therefore transfer with other employees? To access this resource, sign up for a free trial of Practical Law.
The legal distinction between employee and worker usually focuses on rights such as leave and pay, but what happens in the case of a TYPE transfer? Charles Wynn-Evans examines a recent employment tribunal decision on who counts as an employee for the purposes of TYPE.
The London central employment tribunal concluded that TUPE’s definition of an employee was designed to reflect the concept of an “employment relationship” to which the EU Acquired Rights Directive, which TYPE implements into domestic law, specifically applies. Details about the transferring workers will need to be included by the transferor in the “employee liability information” which it is required by TYPE to provide to the transferee.
Employers will need to ensure that their worker constituency is properly accounted for in any election and consultation process. Getting this wrong is potentially serious given that the penalty for failure to comply with TUPE’s information and consultation can be, depending on the tribunal’s assessment of the employer’s default, up to 13 weeks’ pay per employee.
The Hurst decision therefore raises the profile of the question of worker status in TYPE cases and, subject to any subsequent appeal or tribunal decisions to the contrary, draws attention to the need for employers potentially to factor into their TYPE planning those who are not traditional employees but who nonetheless qualify as “workers”. I have been working for around 2 years on a regular basis doing particular shifts every week.
The current employers are transferring their business, and it is being taken over next month, all the other employees with full time and part-time contracts have been advised they will TYPE across to the new employer, I however have been advised that TYPE does not apply to Bank Employees. For my part, I'll try to look at your post tomorrow, but am busy at the moment with paying clients, so no guarantees.
Tribunalsos.co.UK Tel: 07762 771290 Practical, flexible HR solutions for small to medium-sized businesses Sjbeale, Thank you for your advice, in the last year I have worked 44 Saturdays doing the same shift every week.
I have asserted this point yesterday and this is the response I got from HR and Senior management; TYPE does not cover bank staff, the current situation is we will be asking the new providers if they are prepared to employ our current bank staff on their own contracts. If there is agreement the bank staff will be contacted and asked if we can pass their details on to the new providers.
This seems to suggest that they will ask the new provider to employ me and if they do they could change some of my terms and conditions also I have paid a lot into my pension plan and my current employer has made 3 times the contributions I have made. Hi ROB, While you have worked regular Saturdays, the question for a tribunal would be whether you are an employee, and this will be determined on the existence of mutuality of obligations.
Should I wait and see if the new providers will employ me or should I demand to be TUPE'd? To determine the status in this case would require a lot more than a forum thread to answer.
Instead of making demands, why not try to engage positively with the new employer, convince them of your value to the work? I think you must see if you are included in the TYPE consultations and if you are discussed your contract and the actual working practices with the new employer to see if they will accept your employment status and put you on the correct contract when you transfer over.
I have read through them and clearly this matter is not straight forward, I have now been invited to a meeting in order to discuss the issues I have raised, I will be taking my Union rep with me. TYPE refers to the “Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006” as amended by the “Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014”.
A part of a business might for example be a distribution function of a larger organization. In this video, one of our trainers provides an overview of the TYPE regulations and explains how ACAS' services can help employers and employees.
If an employee leaves and claims constructive dismissal due to changes in their contract which are significant and fundamental they will need to have the qualifying length of service to do this. Any social, legal or economic implications for the affected employees for example a change in location or risk of redundancies.
Any measures that the outgoing and incoming employers expect to take in respect of their own employees (even if this is nothing). From 31 July 2014, micro businesses (those with fewer than 10 employees overall) are not required to elect representatives to inform and consult where there are no existing recognized trade unions or elected employee representatives.
Employers are often able to minimize or prevent redundancies and other dismissals when transfers take place. Employees who believe that their terms and conditions have been substantially changed to their detriment before or after a transfer have the right to terminate their employment and claim constructive unfair dismissal at a tribunal.
Where a potential redundancy situation arises as a result of a transfer, employers must consult directly with affected employees and indirectly through representatives when the incoming employer is making (or intending to make) 20 or more redundancies within a 90-day period. Examples include the collective disputes' procedure, time off facilities, training for union representatives, negotiated redundancy procedures or job security arrangements and flexible working arrangements.
Terms and conditions from collective agreements may be renegotiated after one year provided that overall the contract is no less favorable to the employee. In some circumstances contractual changes arising from new collective agreements agreed by the outgoing employer are not required to be incorporated after a transfer.
An example of a successful smooth transition under TYPE is how Capgemini UK engages with their staff and trade unions to make outsourcing or business transfers work for both their employers and their employees. This new automated system learns from your questions and, as more people use it, will get better at providing the most relevant answer to your query.
ACAS offers TYPE training to help organizations understand the regulations, employee and employer rights and responsibilities and the process for business transfers. If your organization is experiencing a specific TYPE issue, our specialists can help diagnose the cause and tailor practical solutions.
Contracts should specify the employment status, rights and obligations of zero hours staff and confirm basic terms, including pay, holiday entitlements, notice and other terms which relate to the way work will be managed. If their status has changed, the employer should consider issuing a new contract to reflect this.
As a result of the 2020 coronavirus outbreak, organizations are able to place staff on furlough. This It essentially means putting employees on temporary leave of absence where they do no work and receive no pay, but they are retained on an organization's books to be brought back in when needed.
Specifically, it asked for views from flexible workers who have experienced these practices in organizations. Introducing compensation for workers who have shifts cancelled at short notice providing workers with a reasonable period of notice of assigned shifts protecting workers against detriments if they decline shifts which are offered on short notice.
The government has yet to publish its official response, with a delay likely due to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Following a consultation on this matter, the government’s ‘Good Work Plan’ released in December 2018 confirmed that legislation will be introduced to create a new right for all workers to request a more predictable and stable contract.