Table of contents
- Impact of this case
- Background law
- Background facts and previous decisions
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Article summary
When determining whether there has been a service provision change under regulation 3 of TUPE 2006, and specifically whether the condition set out in regulation 3(3)(a)(i) has been met, it is necessary to (1) identify the service which the transferor was providing to the client, (2) list the activities which the staff of the transferor performed in order to provide that service, (3) identify the employee or employees of the transferor who ordinarily carried out those activities, and (4) consider whether the transferor organised that employee or those employees into a ‘grouping’ for the principal purpose of carrying out the listed activities. CA: Rynda (UK) v Rhijnsburger.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial