<
Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and Others [2012]
Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and Others [2012]
Published on: 24/02/2012
Issues Covered: Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE)
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background The 35 Claimants in these proceedings were employed by Eddie Stobart Limited at a site at Manton Wood in Nottinghamshire. Eddie Stobart Limited closed the site on 20 April 2009. It is case of Eddie Stobart Limited that at that point the Claimants‟ contracts of employment transferred, by virtue of regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”), to FJG Logistics Ltd and that they ceased to be their employees. FJG Logistics Ltd did not accept that that was the case and declined to treat the Claimants as having become employed by them. It is clear on the facts that the Claimants were dismissed. The question was therefore whether they were dismissed by Eddie Stobart Limited or FJG Logistics Ltd. At first instance, that question was decided in FJG Logistics Ltd‟s favour, with Eddie Stobart Limited held to be responsible. Eddie Stobart Limited appealed against the decision.The EAT dismissed the appeal stating that: - 53"Taking it first and foremost by reference to the statutory language, regulation 3 (3) (a) (i) does not say merely that the employees should in their day-to-day work in fact (principally) carry out the activities in question: it says that carrying out those activities should be the (principal) purpose of an “organised grouping” to which they belong. In my view that necessarily connotes that the employees be organised in some sense by reference to the requirements of the client in question."Put into context, Eddie Stobart Limited had several sub-contracts to deliver goods to large supermarkets. It lost some and believed that FJG Logistics Ltd had been awarded a contract for which a group of employees who worked day shift had ordinarily been assigned. That however was held not to be enough to make them an organised grouping in relation to TUPE - they were organised on a shift basis rather than in relation to contract work.http://bit.ly/A7ZdFk

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 24/02/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →