1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
TUPE or not TUPE?
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tribunal gives answer
dominic.perrytarhi.co.uk WORKSOP TRANSPORT firm Sea&ld Logistics has been left nursing a £100,000 hangover after losing an employment tribunal brought by two drivers against it and fellow haulier Jack Richards & Son.
However, the ruling by the tribunal sets an important precedent for others in the haulage sector, because it clarifies a previously untested part of the 'TUPE laws that was updated in 2006.
The claim was brought by drivers Les Crow and David Beaumont. who were made redundant following the switch of a contract with Dow Building Solutions from Seafield to Norfolk firm Jack Richards in June last year.
Seafield had argued that since the pair were employed on the contract, they should transfer under TUPE: but Jack Richards disagreed, claiming they were, in fact. general haulage drivers who happened to do some work on the specific contract.
The tribunal ruled in favour of Jack Richards and held that the drivers were unfairly dismissed by Seafield, awarding them compensation of around £30.000 each. According to Dan Chapman, a solicitor for Loathes Prior, who represented Jack Richards. the tribunal decided that although the drivers had worked on the Dow operation, their contracts specified they were general haulage drivers and free to be redeployed elsewhere in Seafield-s business. Even if the drivers had spent the majority of their time on Dow work, they were still not covered by TUPE.
Chapman says: -It is hard to underestimate the significance of this case; had the tribunal decided the other way,then the ramifications for the haulage industry would have been huge.
"If you believe your drivers to be dedicated to a particular client, then you need that to be documented. The tribunal will come down on the side of the incumbent."
Peter Brown, MD of Jack Richards, adds: "Our own high standards in dealing with the transfer of staff have been reviewed and found lobe absolutely in order."
As well as making the award to the two drivers, the tribunal also ordered that Seafield pay the drivers' and Jack Richards' costs.
Mark Strong, MD of Seafield, adds: "Obviously, we are very disappointed. We did believe it was a TUPE situation, otherwise we would not have taken it to the tribunal."