Next in our series of ebriefings on the Government’s Green Paper: Transforming public procurement; looking at the Chapter 4 proposal to change the basis of contract awards.
Only employees who form part of an organised grouping of employees, assigned to carry out the services that are the subject of the transfer, will move to the new provider upon a service provision change under TUPE. The recent case of BT Managed Services Limited v Edwards and Another involved such a service provision change and an employee on sick leave.
Mr Edwards was employed by BT Managed Services Limited (BT). He developed a heart condition that prevented him from carrying out the work that was required for his role. Mr Edwards went on long-term sick leave in January 2008 and was in receipt of permanent health insurance (PHI) payments. He remained employed by BT in order to continue receiving the PHI payments. Even when the PHI payments ceased he remained on the employer’s books and was in receipt of some payments from them, but he did not carry out any further work during this time. In fact, he was deemed permanently incapacitated for work.
In December 2012 the service contract on which Mr Edwards had worked previously was transferred to Eriksson. There was no dispute that TUPE applied and that Mr Edwards' team transferred. The question was whether Mr Edwards was part of the organised grouping of employees at the time of the transfer.
The Employment Tribunal found, and the EAT agreed, that he was not, as it was not contemplated that the employee would ever provide work, or carry out any of the services, under the contract. They considered that the link between the employer and employee only served for administrative purposes and this was not enough for the employee to be assigned.
The EAT gave the following guidance in considering the assignment of an employee on sick leave:
- if an employee is absent from work at the time of the transfer, it will be matter of fact for the Tribunal to determine if they are part of the organised grouping that transfers or not;
- even lengthy absence will not preclude the employee from being assigned, but there must be some expectation of future participation in carrying out the relevant activities;
- the Tribunal must identify the organised grouping that transfers and then consider who is assigned to that group; and
- the organised grouping is defined in the TUPE Regulations by reference to the economic activities that the grouping pursues; an employee who plays no part in those economic activities will not be assigned to the grouping.
What does this mean?
It is important to distinguish between employees who are temporarily or permanently unable to work. It is clear that employees who are only on short-term absence, or those who are on longer-term absence but have some prospect of returning, will still be considered to be assigned to the organised grouping of employees and will therefore transfer.
This decision applies to employees who are both on long-term absence and who have no real prospect of returning. Whilst it is unlikely to apply frequently in TUPE transfers, the decision does provide grounds for challenging the inclusion of employees on long-term sickness on any TUPE lists. Our advice therefore is to ensure that your TUPE due diligence is carried out with care when it comes to employees on long-term absence.
For further information
Please contact Kate Watkins
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.