The Transfer of Undertakings
(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, commonly referred to as TUPE, represent
a pivotal framework in English employment law. It was designed to safeguard
employees when the organisation employing them changes ownership or management.
Its foundation rests upon the Acquired Rights Directive of the European Union,
ensuring consistency in protections across member states before Brexit. TUPE
continues to govern transfers of businesses, assets, and service provisions,
placing employee welfare at the centre of structural business change.
The principal purpose of TUPE is
to maintain continuity of employment and prevent employees from suffering
detriment as a direct consequence of corporate restructuring. This protective
legislation ensures that employees are not left vulnerable to dismissals,
inferior working conditions, or uncertainty regarding their employment terms and benefits.
TUPE seeks to balance two often conflicting interests: the freedom of
commercial entities to restructure and the security of employees whose
livelihoods depend on stability and fairness.
A distinctive element of TUPE
lies in its automatic transfer provisions. These stipulate that employees
affected by a qualifying transfer move automatically to the incoming employer,
known as the transferee, on their existing contractual terms. The effect is to
treat employment relationships as ongoing, with only the legal identity of the
employer being altered. This distinguishes TUPE from ordinary contractual
assignments where consent would typically be required.
The importance of TUPE is
reflected in its extensive litigation history, as courts have consistently been
asked to clarify the scope and meaning of its protections. From the definition
of an “economic entity” in Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir BV to the
rules on contract variations in Wilson v St Helens BC, judicial interpretation
has shaped the application of TUPE in practice. The legislation remains vital
in protecting employment relationships while reflecting the complexities of
modern business structures.
The Concept of an Economic Entity
For TUPE to apply, there must be
a transfer of an “economic entity” that retains its identity. An economic
entity is essentially a recognisable business or part of it that continues to
exist following the transfer. This principle, derived from European
jurisprudence, has been adopted by UK courts as a central threshold test for
determining the validity of a contract. The focus is on whether there is a
recognisable business or part of it that continues to exist following the
transfer.
The leading authority remains Spijkers
v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir BV, where the European Court of Justice
emphasised that a holistic assessment must be made. The court identified several
key factors, including the type of undertaking, transfer of tangible assets, the
value of intangible assets, the retention of the majority of employees,
similarity of operations, and continuity of the customer base. No single factor
is decisive, but taken together, they assist in determining whether the entity
has retained its identity.
English case law has applied this
test flexibly, recognising that the modern economy increasingly relies upon
service provision rather than physical assets. For example, in Duncan Webb
Offset (Maidstone) Ltd v Cooper, the Employment Appeal Tribunal highlighted
that the retention of employees may be a critical factor where the business is
labour-intensive. Conversely, in capital-heavy industries, the transfer of
equipment and premises may assume greater importance.
TUPE also extends to changes in
service provision, covering outsourcing, insourcing, and the retendering of
contracts. This expansion, introduced in the 2006 Regulations, ensures that
employees are not left vulnerable during contracting-out processes, which have
become common in both public and private sectors. However, exceptions exist,
particularly where activities are wholly or mainly for the supply of goods for
a client’s use. Thus, the economic entity test remains a nuanced and evolving
concept.
Continuity of Employment
Contracts
The automatic transfer principle
under TUPE is most clearly expressed in Regulation 4. It provides that all
contracts of employment of those assigned to the undertaking transfer to the
transferee by operation of law. This ensures that employees do not need to
consent to the change, and the transferee does not need to negotiate new terms.
Employment continues seamlessly, with the transferee stepping directly into the
transferor’s shoes, upholding the fairness of the employment relationship.
The decision in Litster v Forth
Dry Dock illustrates the broad protective approach taken by courts. In that
case, employees dismissed shortly before a transfer were deemed to have their
contracts preserved under TUPE because the dismissals were connected with the
transfer. This ensured that employers could not evade responsibilities by
strategically dismissing employees in anticipation of a sale. TUPE therefore
guards against manipulation and reinforces the stability of employment
relations.
However, TUPE does not guarantee
that contracts will never be changed. The legislation acknowledges the need for
flexibility in business operations, permitting variations where there is an
economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason entailing changes in the
workforce. These reasons could include a need to reduce costs, improve
efficiency, or adapt to new market conditions. The courts have consistently
stressed, however, that ETO reasons must be genuine and not simply a pretext
for reducing employment costs. The case of Wilson v St Helens BC confirmed that
variations motivated solely by the transfer are void.
The continuation of contracts
also means that liabilities, rights and obligations transfer with them. This
includes accrued rights such as holiday pay, redundancy entitlements, and
ongoing disciplinary or grievance processes. The transferee cannot evade these
liabilities, even if unaware of them, underscoring the need for thorough due
diligence in any corporate transaction. TUPE thus aligns employment continuity
with commercial accountability, emphasising the importance of due diligence in
this regard.
Collective Agreements and Trade
Union Rights
Collective agreements play a
significant role in shaping the employment relationship, particularly in
unionised sectors. TUPE ensures that these agreements also transfer to the
transferee, maintaining continuity in collective bargaining structures. This includes
recognition agreements with trade unions and any collective terms incorporated
into individual contracts. As such, employees retain not only their personal
rights but also the collective strength that underpins them.
The case of Whent v T Cartledge
Ltd confirmed that collectively agreed pay rises negotiated post-transfer could
bind the transferee, provided they were part of the contractual framework. This
illustrates the potentially far-reaching consequences of collective agreements
under TUPE, as incoming employers may be bound by future commitments negotiated
by their predecessor. Such obligations can create challenges for transferees as
they attempt to align terms across a newly acquired workforce.
Trade union rights also remain
intact, with union representatives continuing to exercise their functions after
the transfer of ownership. This continuity is crucial in ensuring that employees have a
voice during periods of organisational upheaval. It also reflects the statutory
commitment to collective consultation, particularly where redundancies or
contractual variations are contemplated following the transfer. The role of
trade unions is therefore embedded within the fabric of TUPE.
Nonetheless, tensions persist
between the need for certainty in collective agreements and the commercial
realities faced by transferees. The obligation to honour potentially costly
collective commitments can deter investment or encourage restructuring designed
to avoid them. This tension illustrates the delicate balance TUPE must strike
between preserving workers’ rights and allowing businesses sufficient
flexibility to remain competitive in a changing economy.
Employer Duties to Inform and
Consult
TUPE imposes obligations on both
the transferor and transferee to inform and, where appropriate, consult with
affected employees or their representatives. Regulation 13 requires employers
to provide information about the transfer, including the date, reasons for it,
its legal, economic, and social implications, and any measures envisaged in
relation to employees. This duty underscores the principle of transparency
during organisational change.
Where measures are anticipated,
consultation with appropriate representatives becomes mandatory. This may
involve recognised trade unions or elected representatives where no union is
recognised. The purpose is to enable employees to engage with and influence the
decisions that may affect them. Although the legislation does not demand
agreement, it does require a genuine process of engagement.
Failure to comply with these
duties exposes employers to liability. Employment tribunals may award
compensation of up to thirteen weeks’ gross pay per affected employee,
emphasising the seriousness with which the law treats consultation. Both
transferor and transferee may be held jointly and severally liable, reinforcing
the collective responsibility of employers to treat employees fairly during
transfers.
Critics argue that the
consultation duty under TUPE remains weaker than broader European standards,
where “meaningful consultation” is required before decisions are finalised. In
the UK, the duty often amounts to notification rather than negotiation, limiting
the influence employees can exert. While the principle of consultation is
entrenched, its practical impact can be undermined by narrow statutory
interpretation.
Liabilities and Responsibilities
Post-Transfer
TUPE ensures that all rights,
powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with employment contracts
transfer to the transferee. This includes statutory claims, such as unfair
dismissal, redundancy payments, and discrimination claims, as well as
contractual obligations, including bonuses and pension contributions. The
transferee inherits not only the workforce but also the legal baggage that
accompanies it.
The principle of inherited
liability was confirmed in Litster v Forth Dry Dock, where dismissals designed
to avoid liabilities were rendered ineffective. The transferee became
responsible for employees dismissed in anticipation of the transfer, ensuring
continuity of claims. This prevents employers from circumventing obligations through
timing or artificial restructuring.
Due diligence, therefore, becomes
central to corporate transactions involving TUPE. Purchasers must investigate
the workforce liabilities they are acquiring, including potential claims and
unresolved disputes. Warranties and indemnities are often negotiated in sale
agreements to allocate risks between the parties. However, TUPE itself makes no
allowance for ignorance: the transferee remains liable regardless of whether
such issues were disclosed.
The allocation of liability
highlights the tension between employee protection and commercial certainty.
While employees benefit from security and continuity, transferees may find
themselves exposed to unexpected costs. This risk can deter acquisitions or
inflate transaction costs, suggesting that TUPE, while protective, can also
create obstacles to economic flexibility and growth.
Impact on Employees and Job
Security
From the employee perspective,
TUPE provides vital reassurance during times of organisational change. The
automatic transfer principle means that individuals can expect their jobs, pay,
and terms to remain secure despite the upheaval of a business transfer. This
security is fundamental in industries prone to outsourcing and retendering,
such as cleaning, catering, and public services.
However, TUPE does not eliminate
all uncertainty. Employees may face changes in management culture, working
practices, or geographical location. While their contracts remain intact, the
environment in which they work may undergo significant changes. Moreover, where
employers can justify dismissals or changes on ETO grounds, employees may find
their protections less robust in practice.
Redundancies linked directly to
the transfer are automatically unfair, but dismissals for economic reasons
unrelated to the transfer are permissible. The line between these categories
can be fine, leaving employees vulnerable to interpretation. Similarly,
variations to terms, though restricted, can occur where economic realities
necessitate restructuring. Thus, TUPE offers significant but not absolute
protection.
The broader psychological impact
of transfers should not be underestimated. Even where legal protections exist,
employees may still experience anxiety, uncertainty, and a decline in morale.
TUPE aims to foster confidence by preserving continuity, but its limitations
mean that job security remains conditional. In practice, the effectiveness of
TUPE depends as much on employer behaviour as on statutory rules.
Variation of Employment Terms and
Dismissals
A central issue in TUPE
litigation concerns the extent to which transferees may vary employees’ terms.
Regulation 4(4) provides that variations are void if the sole or principal
reason is the transfer itself. This reflects the principle that employees should
not be disadvantaged merely because ownership has changed. However, Regulation
4(5) allows variations where there is an ETO reason entailing changes in the
workforce.
The case of Wilson v St Helens BC
demonstrated the courts’ strict approach. Employees were offered financial
inducements to accept new contracts with less favourable terms. The House of
Lords held that such variations were unenforceable, emphasising that consent
obtained under the shadow of a transfer lacked validity. This case reinforced
the protective ethos of TUPE, preventing employers from circumventing
safeguards through bargaining pressure.
Dismissals also attract
significant protection. Under Regulation 7, dismissals where the sole or
principal reason is the transfer are automatically unfair unless justified by
an ETO reason. This ensures that employees are not arbitrarily removed simply because
they form part of a transferred workforce. At the same time, it preserves the
employer’s ability to restructure legitimately for economic survival.
Nevertheless, TUPE’s restrictions
on variations and dismissals can clash with business realities. Employers may
need to harmonise terms across a workforce or adapt to market pressures
following an acquisition. The rigidity of TUPE can impede such adjustments,
potentially discouraging investment. Critics argue that a more flexible
approach might achieve a better balance between security and adaptability.
Case Law and Judicial
Interpretation
Case law has been pivotal in
defining the scope and application of TUPE. Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik
Abattoir BV established the foundation for assessing economic entity transfers,
while Litster v Forth Dry Dock extended protection to employees dismissed before
the transfer. These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s willingness to interpret
TUPE purposively in favour of employee security.
Subsequent decisions have
grappled with the complexities of service provision changes. In Metropolitan
Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal
emphasised that a service provision change requires an organised grouping of
employees whose principal purpose is the relevant activities. This narrowed the
scope, excluding situations where employees were not clearly dedicated to the
transferred services.
The interpretation of collective
agreements has also been shaped by case law. In Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure
Ltd, the Supreme Court, following a European ruling, held that transferees
could not be bound by dynamic clauses in collective agreements negotiated after
the transfer without their participation. This marked a shift towards
protecting employer flexibility over employee expectations.
Judicial interpretation reflects
the ongoing struggle to reconcile employee protection with economic efficiency.
While courts have consistently upheld the protective spirit of TUPE, they have
also recognised the practical limits of imposing liabilities on transferees.
The evolving case law demonstrates the dynamic nature of TUPE and its
responsiveness to changing economic and social contexts.
Criticisms and Practical
Challenges
TUPE has faced sustained
criticism from both employers and commentators. Employers often regard it as
overly rigid, creating difficulties in harmonising terms or restructuring
efficiently after a transfer. The automatic transfer of liabilities can deter acquisitions
or lead to extensive negotiations over indemnities, increasing the complexity
and cost of transactions.
Employees, conversely, argue that
TUPE’s protections, while valuable, are not absolute. The allowance for ETO
dismissals and variations leaves room for erosion of rights, particularly in
industries where restructuring is frequent. Moreover, the consultation
obligations are often seen as minimal, offering little genuine influence over
decisions that fundamentally affect employment.
Academics have also questioned
whether TUPE strikes the right balance between economic flexibility and social
protection. By imposing blanket continuity, it may inhibit economic
restructuring, yet by permitting ETO exceptions, it dilutes the certainty of
protection. This dual criticism highlights TUPE’s inherent compromise and its
struggle to effectively serve competing interests.
In practice, TUPE disputes
generate significant litigation, reflecting both the importance of the issues
and the ambiguities within the regulations. The need for constant judicial
interpretation suggests that the statutory framework lacks clarity, leaving
uncertainty for both employers and employees. Reform proposals have therefore
repeatedly sought to simplify and clarify TUPE while preserving its essential
protective function.
Post-Brexit Implications and
Future Reform
Brexit has raised questions about
the future of TUPE, given its origins in European law. Although the UK has
retained TUPE within domestic legislation, the absence of EU oversight means
that Parliament and the courts have greater freedom to diverge from European
principles. This could lead to significant reforms in the coming years,
particularly if policymakers seek to enhance economic flexibility.
Some commentators predict that
the service provision change rules, unique to the UK’s implementation, may be
revisited. These provisions have extended TUPE beyond the scope of the original
Directive, creating uncertainty and complexity. Reform could narrow the scope
to traditional business transfers, reducing employer burdens but leaving
employees in outsourced sectors with weaker protection.
The interpretation of collective
agreements may also be reconsidered. Post-Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by
restrictive European decisions such as Alemo-Herron, raising the possibility of
a more employee-friendly approach. Alternatively, the government may limit the impact of collective bargaining further to promote flexibility and
competitiveness.
Ultimately, the future of TUPE
will depend upon the political balance between labour protection and economic
liberalisation. In a competitive global market, pressures to reform may
intensify, but any erosion of protections risks undermining job security and
employee confidence. The post-Brexit era offers both opportunities and dangers
for the evolution of TUPE.
Summary: The Implications of TUPE
for Staff
TUPE remains one of the most
significant pillars of employment protection in the UK. Preserving contracts,
liabilities, and collective rights during business transfers provides
continuity and security for employees at times of great uncertainty. At the
same time, it imposes significant obligations on employers, shaping corporate
behaviour and transaction strategies.
The legislation’s complexity and
frequent litigation demonstrate its central importance and continuing
controversy. Case law has filled gaps, clarified ambiguities, and shaped the
practical application of TUPE, but it has also exposed tensions between the need for protection and the desire for flexibility. Employees benefit from stability, yet still face
vulnerabilities where economic justifications are invoked. Employers benefit
from clarity, yet often perceive TUPE as a burden.
Critics argue that TUPE strikes
neither side perfectly, offering partial protection and onerous obligations.
Nonetheless, it embodies a commitment to fairness in employment, ensuring that
structural business changes do not come at the expense of those who contribute
to economic activity. It remains a vital expression of the principle that
employment is more than a commodity.
In the years ahead, TUPE’s durability will depend upon its capacity to adapt to new economic realities. Whether through reform, reinterpretation, or reinforcement, its future lies in maintaining the delicate balance between protecting employees and facilitating commercial enterprise. The regulation serves as both a shield and a constraint, reflecting the ongoing negotiation between economic efficiency and social justice.
Additional articles can be found at Business Law Made Easy. This site examines business legislation to help organisations and individuals enhance the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service offerings, ultimately delivering customer delight. ©️ Business Law Made Easy. All rights reserved.
