AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal quashes dismissal appeal

28th November 2002
Page 25
Page 25, 28th November 2002 — Tribunal quashes dismissal appeal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

An Edinburgh employment tribunal has ruled that the TUPE Regulations did not apply to a situation where one haulier had taken on a contract after another had decided to relinquish it.

The tribunal ruled that Coatbridge driver Garry Grant's employment with BelishIll-based Courier Connections began in November last year, and that his previous employment with Uddingston-based M&G Grant did not count as continuous employment. This ruling was made as a preliminary issue in Grant's claim for unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal heard that Grant had started with M&G Grant in December 1999, working on the contract It hold with John Menzies to distribute newspapers, In August 2001 Grant was told that the Menzies contract was coming to an end. He was advised to seek employment with another haulage contractor or with Menzies itself.

The contract was terminated by M&G Grant on 17 November and Courier Connections took over the work. Grant was employed by Courier on similar terms to those he had with M&G Grant. There was no break in the continuation of his employment.

However, the Tribunal was satisfied that there had not been a relevant transfer within the meaning of the TUPE rugs. Both firms carried on business as road hauliers and virtually nothing was transferred from M&G Grant to Courier.

Ma Grant continued to own the vehicles it had formerly owned and it stayed in the same premises. There been no transfer of goodwill.

Courier had a number of contracts with John Menzies; when M&G Grant terminated its contract Courier was asked to take on the work.

The European Court had ruled that bus transport could not be regarded as being based on manpower because it required substantial equipment.

The Tribunal drew a parallel between bus transport and haulage and, In these circumstances, It was satisfied that there had been no relevant transfer which would Invoke TUPE as no vehicles had been transferred.

Tags

Organisations: European Court
Locations: Uddingston

comments powered by Disqus