JPP Law Blog
Use of new technology ‘didn’t remove TUPE responsibility’
A company's decision to use new technology to bring one of its services back in house did not remove its responsibility under TUPE to hire workers affected by the change.
That was the decision of the Employment Tribunal in the case of Anglo Beef Processors UK and a meat inspector, Mr Longland.
Anglo hired an independent contractor, Meat & Livestock Commercial Services Ltd (MLCS), to classify its carcasses. Mr Longland was a key worker on that contract.
His duties included weighing, marking and recording information about carcasses in an abattoir. Much of the work was manual but there was also some use of video imaging analysis.
Anglo then decided to end the contract and bring the service back in house. The process would be streamlined using new technology.
Mr Longland claimed the service would remain "fundamentally the same" as before and he was therefore entitled under the TUPE regulations to have his employment transferred to Anglo.
The tribunal ruled in his favour.
It held that although Anglo was introducing new technology to improve the service, the work still required a person with Mr Langland's qualifications to be present to oversee the operation, calibrate equipment and to manually classify carcasses when the machinery didn't function properly.
The judge said: "I considered that there was really very little room for doubt that the activities carried out by (Anglo Beef) after the alleged transfer was fundamentally the same as that carried out by (MLCS) prior to the alleged transfer.
"The activity was that of classifying carcases so as to calculate the amount that farmers could be paid. In my view, it was completely irrelevant whether that classification was done manually or electronically."
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that decision.
For further advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or for employment law advice more generally, please contact JPP Law on 020 3468 3064 or email info@jpplaw.co.uk
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (90)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (118)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- Start-ups (21)
- Videos (8)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)