Workers do transfer under TUPE
In Dewhurst v Revisecatch Ltd the Employment Tribunal has decided that workers, as well as employees, transfer under TUPE.
The case involved cycle couriers who were claiming holiday pay and compensation for failure to inform and consult.
A preliminary hearing was held to decide whether “workers” fall within the definition of “employee” in TUPE. The employment judge considered the European Acquired Rights Directive, which TUPE implements. The Directive defines an employee as anyone who is “protected as an employee under national law”, and operates to transfer rights and obligations arising under an employment contract or an “employment relationship”. The UK’s national law includes various definitions of “employee”, encompassing both traditional employees and individuals in an intermediate class (not employees, but also not independent contractors) ie “workers”. Workers benefit from a limited range of employment rights such as the right to holiday and national minimum wage.
TUPE itself defines an “employee” as “any individual working under a contract of service, or apprenticeship or otherwise”. The employment judge held that this was intended to cover workers as they are individuals who are working such that the nature of that contract would fall within the words “or otherwise”. The judge considered that the reference to “or otherwise” must be intended to mean something; therefore it was more than semantics and reflected the purpose behind the Directive.
Although this is only a tribunal decision and therefore not binding on other tribunals, it is not unexpected given the broad wording in TUPE’s definition of “employee”. It cannot be long before this issue comes before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Although it does not give workers unfair dismissal rights, it does mean that they are covered by the collective consultation provisions of TUPE and their worker rights, such as holiday pay and national minimum wage, (including any prior breach of such rights) would transfer as well as their contractual rights.
Employers should therefore consider including workers when providing employee liability information (ELI), and when looking at who is affected by any measures and in any collective consultation exercise. An award of at least £500 per worker for failure to provide ELI and a protective award of up to 13 weeks’ actual pay per worker for failure to consult is a high penalty to pay if an employer gets this wrong. Those involved in corporate transactions need to ensure that workers are included in any due diligence exercise and addressed in any warranties and indemnities.
This article was written by Kirsti Laird. For more information please get in touch via kirsti.laird@crsblaw.com or on +44 (0)20 7427 6411.
Our thinking
Mark Howard
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Content+Cloud on the acquisition of award-winning service provider Azzure IT
Content+Cloud continues its growth journey, this is our 7th successful transaction for them.
Sarah Keens
Being Green - The Struggle for Power
Everything you need to know about Green Leases
Rose Carey
Is the UK open for business? A discussion with the Home Office
We hosted an immigration webinar with the policymakers from the Home Office.
Louise Ward
Louise Ward writes for EG on what UK investors can gain from an overseas life sciences partner
What UK investors can gain from an overseas life sciences partner
Sonia Kenawy
Sonia Kenawy writes for New Law Journal on cryptocurrency and security for costs
Sonia Kenawy writes for New Law Journal on cryptocurrency and security for costs
David Haines
New Arbitration Scheme for Commercial Arrears goes live
Everything you need to know about the new Arbitration Scheme for Commercial Arrears
Charlotte Healy
Charlotte Healy and Katie Bewick write for Pharmacy Business on expert determination
Charlotte Healy and Katie Bewick write for Pharmacy Business on expert determination
Pei Li Kew
Pei Li Kew writes for Pharmacy Business on the link between pharmacy and IP
Pei Li Kew writes for Pharmacy Business on the link between pharmacy and IP
Charlotte Duly
Charlotte Duly writes for CITMA Review on the China Tang trade mark infringement case
Charlotte Duly writes for CITMA Review on the China Tang trade mark infringement case
Mark Howard
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on its acquisition of Secrutiny
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on its acquisition of Secrutiny
Oliver Park
Building Safety Act 2022
Everything you need to know about the Building Safety Act 2022
Jonathan McDonald
Jonathan McDonald provides comment for City AM on the Data Reform Bill announced in the Queen's Speech
Jonathan McDonald provides comment for City AM on the Data Reform Bill announced in the Queen's Speech
Claire Fallows
CoStar quotes Claire Fallows on the new infrastructure levy announced in the Queen's Speech
CoStar quotes Claire Fallows on the new infrastructure levy announced in the Queen's Speech
Nick White
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Symphony Holdings Limited on the sale of its PONY trade mark portfolio for USD $28 million
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Symphony Holdings Limited on the sale of its PONY trade mark portfolio for USD $28 million.
Hope Wilson
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Simon Ridpath
Simon Ridpath featured in the Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Simon Ridpath features in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Mark Howard
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc on its £7m equity fundraising
Europa Oil and Gas is a renewable energy, oil and gas development and production company.
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: what’s been happening in the world of Essential Residential?
We discuss recent cases of interest to those dealing with residential property.
David Savage
David Savage writes for PBC Today on the end of rebated fuel
David Savage writes for PBC Today on the end of rebated fuel
Charlotte Duly
Charlotte Duly quoted in Retail Gazette on House of Zana trademark dispute
Charlotte Duly quoted in Retail Gazette on House of Zana trademark dispute