Entity transfers

Case 4: The facts

IBM had a contract to maintain a bank's computers. It contracted the work out to another company, SCC, but then ended the contract and gave it to Computacenter. Mr Swanton and his colleagues argued that there had been a TUPE transfer.

The ruling

The EAT held that there had been no relevant transfer. There was no contractual link between SCC and Computacenter, neither employees nor assets had transferred, and there was no evidence that Computacenter had deliberately decided not to take on SCC's staff to avoid TUPE. The absence of these four key factors meant that there had not been a relevant transfer.

Computacenter UK v Swanton and others UKEAT/0256/04

Case 5: The facts

A ferry company was dissatisfied with the performance of a contractor's employees, and gave the contract to a different firm. The employees claimed unfair dismissal and breach of the TUPE regulations.

The ruling

The EAT held that there had been no TUPE transfer. No employees had transferred; in a labour-intensive economic entity, this was a key factor in deciding whether there had been a relevant transfer. The ferry company had refused to take on the employees because it was dissatisfied with their performance, not because it wanted to avoid the regulations.

Carlisle Facilities Group v Matrix Events & Others [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Nov)