Case - Johnson Controls Limited v (1) Campbell; (2) UKAEA

[2012] All ER (D) 220, Employment Appeal Tribunal - Paul Rose QC, Stuart Brittenden
An employment judge had been entitled to find that there had been no "service provision change" within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 reg.3(1)(b) where a centralised taxi administration service had been discontinued so as to allow individual secretaries to book taxis for staff directly.
 
The appellant company (J) appealed against a decision of an employment judge that there had not been a transfer of the employment of the first respondent (C) to the second respondent (U) under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.

J had, through C, provided a taxi administration service for U. Among other things, C took bookings from U's employees, advised on the timings of the journeys that they wished to undertake, reviewed booking data, combined jobs and pick-ups to ensure the best use of available transport, allocated jobs to taxi companies, checked the invoices from those companies, dealt with booking queries and entered the costs of the taxi companies onto a database. In 2010, U decided to review the taxi booking service provided by J in order to reduce costs. Instead of using a taxi administration service, it asked its secretaries to book taxis directly with the taxi companies. The employment judge held that there had been no "service provision change" within the meaning of reg.3(1)(b) of the Regulations as a result of U's decision: C had performed a centralised function and the fact that there was no longer any centralisation meant that a different "activity" was being performed.

HELD: The employment judge had been entitled to place emphasis on the centralised and co-ordinated nature of the service provided by J through C and to conclude that there had been no "service provision change" as a result of U's decision to use individual secretaries to make bookings, Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (In Liquidation) [2009] I.C.R. 1380 applied (see paras 20, 22 of judgment).

Appeal dismissed.

Counsel:

For the appellant: Paul Rose QC
For the first respondent: Non-counsel representative
For the second respondent: Stuart Brittenden
About cookies on our website

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)