奥蒂莫物业服务有限公司-v-邓肯和另一个, the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal has decided that, where several different 客户s change service provider at or around the same time, each individual 服务条款变更 can be considered together to decide how 管道 applies.

事实

Duncan先生在一个名为Britannia Village的住宅区担任现场维护工程师。庄园由几个不同的街区组成,每个街区都有居民’管理公司。这些公司都是独立的法人实体,分别签约为每个街区提供财产管理服务。此外,该庄园的一家综合管理公司签约了公共部分的维修,例如庄园停车场和花园。

最初,邓肯先生’雇主负责根据不列颠尼亚村的大多数维护合同提供维护工作,但后来这些合同逐渐丢失给其他承包商。在2012年5月至2012年8月之间,邓肯先生’的老板奥蒂莫(Ottimo)失去了沃里克房地产公司(Warwick Estate Properties)的五份合同。沃里克(Warwick)雇用了一名物业经理来处理合同,并聘请承包商提供一些服务。沃里克不相信TUPE申请调任邓肯先生’的工作,并没有考虑他为物业经理’的位置。 2012年7月,Ottimo终止了Duncan先生’s employment.

邓肯先生向就业法庭提出了要求。法庭必须决定邓肯先生是否’沃里克获得了五份合同后,他的工作已经转移到TUPE下的沃里克。法庭裁定没有任何转让。他们决定的关键部分在于是否有"服务条款变更"从奥蒂莫(Ottimo)到沃里克(Warwick),这可能导致TUPE申请转让邓肯先生’s employment.

管道下的服务提供更改

Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of 管道 says that a 服务条款变更 can occur where:

"承包商不再对 客户’s 代表……而是由另一个人执行…" [重点添加]

奥蒂莫和邓肯先生争辩说"client" should not be limited to the singular; in other words, where several 客户s changed service provider as here, those changes should be considered together as one single 服务条款变更. If there was one single larger 服务条款变更, Mr Duncan would be better able to say that he was assigned to that service, such that 管道 applied to transfer his employment, rather than having the more difficult task of arguing that he was assigned to one of the individual contracts that had been transferred to Warwick.

The Tribunal disagreed. It said that, reading 管道 literally, a 服务条款变更 occurred when a single 客户 changed contractor; in other words each 客户’需要单独查看其情况,而不是与同时进行的其他服务提供更改一起查看。在这种情况下,虽然可以争辩说TUPE的服务条款变更规定适用于每个居民个人做出的承包商变更’管理公司,邓肯先生没有被分配到这些合同中,因此他的工作并没有根据TUPE转移到沃里克。

饮食’s decision

在上诉中,就业上诉法庭推翻了该决定。它说这个词"client"TUPE第3(1)(b)条可以理解为复数"clients", so long as the 客户s retained their identity before and after the 服务条款变更 (as was the case here). However, the EAT was keen to emphasise that there must be some 共性, or link, between those 客户s for individual 服务条款变更s to be considered together. This does not mean that there needs to be a single "umbrella" contract between all the 客户s and the contractor. The fact that each 客户 contracted individually with the contractor in this case was not fatal. However, in this case, the EAT said the fact that each individual 客户 contracted with the contractor using the same standard form contract did not necessarily mean that there was such 共性. The case has been sent back to the Tribunal to decide the point.

雇主的实际问题

不幸的是,此案确实使雇主难以确定服务条款是否更改条款 可能适用TUPE。饮食’s decision makes clear that where several different 客户s change contractors at or around the same time, the employer cannot focus on an analysis of each individual contract change to decide how 管道 might apply. Where there is some "commonality",这样一来,法庭就有可能一起分析每个服务条款的更改,以决定TUPE的适用方式。

目前,直到法庭做出决定"commonality"可能意味着,雇主可能难以得出结论,即是否需要将合同变更单独考虑或与同时进行的其他变更一起考虑。这可能会对根据TUPE进行调任的那些员工的分析产生重大影响。