Spot the difference — TUPE applied even though activities carried out in different way post transfer
The contract that was the subject of Qlog Ltd v O’Brien related to the transportation of cardboard packaging goods on behalf of a client. The outgoing contractor engaged heavy-goods vehicle (HGV) drivers to work on the contract, along with employees who loaded the vehicles and a transport manager.
When the contract was re-tendered, the incoming contractor was what is known in the industry as a ‘fourth-party logistics platform operation’ — essentially a ‘middle man’ who contracted with other haulage companies to make individual deliveries and collections on behalf of the client. By the time of the tribunal hearing, it was using 30 different firms to deliver goods. As it did not make deliveries itself, it argued that there was no service provision change (SPC) TUPE transfer in respect of the HGV drivers; although it accepted that the loaders and the transport manager would transfer…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump