Employment · Employment team, supervising partner, in-house HR counsel
A TUPE transfer, from question to work-stream memo
Nineteen people are in scope of a services transfer. The client wants to know whether TUPE applies and what has to happen and by when. The timetable is the part most likely to go wrong.
- Agents
- First draft
- Two grounded research answers in under a minute each, then a Work-Stream Memo with the full timetable the same day.
- Steps
- 6
The problem
Step 01 of 06
Open the matter and set the transfer date
The intended transfer date goes on the matter as a key date; the conflict check reports that the counterparty already appears on a linked matter.
Step 02 of 06
Ask the threshold question
Whether TUPE applies, and which limb of regulation 3 is engaged, returns an answer that does not force a choice where either limb leads to the same consequence.
Step 03 of 06
Ask the timetable question
The employee liability information deadline, the consultation obligation, and the uncapped penalty under regulation 15(8)(a) are set out with their statutory references.
Step 04 of 06
Build the work-stream memo
The Employment Agent runs on Thorough, covering the analysis, a timetable counted back from the transfer date, the harmonisation position, and a Next actions section.
Step 05 of 06
Read the counted-back timetable
Each date is stated against the transfer date, from the employee liability information deadline back to confirming the workforce facts.
Step 06 of 06
Sign off
The partner ticks the items, clicks Verify all across the nine authorities, and signs off.
What comes back
A document, not a transcript.
- An analysis of which limb of regulation 3 is engaged, with the fact-finding named rather than forced to a premature conclusion.
- A consultation and employee liability information timetable counted back from the transfer date.
- A candid note on harmonisation: a post-completion levelling exercise is not a safe assumption under regulation 4(4).
- A Next actions section with owners and dates, and open questions for the client to confirm the workforce facts.
Authorities it checks
- TUPE 2006, reg 3(1)(a) and reg 3(1)(b)
- TUPE 2006, reg 11, reg 12, reg 13, reg 14, reg 15(8)(a)
- Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV (Case 24/85)
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd
- Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546
What it does not do
- It does not decide which limb of regulation 3 applies where the facts are not yet confirmed; it advises on the basis that TUPE applies either way.
- It does not run the consultation itself. The elected representatives and the consultation meetings are the client's and the firm's own process.
- It does not assume harmonisation is safe after transfer; that assumption is flagged as the one clients get wrong.