Description
The Court of Appeal has provided useful clarity on whether there was an economic activity which could transfer under TUPE or a reorganisation of public administrative authorities/transfer of such functions between them which do not. Listen along to find out more!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Bicknell and another versus NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board in which the Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the merger of NHS clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region amounted to a TUPE transfer. The key focus of the case was the border between economic activities which can transfer under TUPE, and public administrative functions, which do not transfer. In this case, the employee, B, worked as clinical lead GP of a clinical commissioning group in Nottinghamshire. In April 2020, several clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region merged into a single clinical commissioning group. B was dismissed following this merger and brought a claim arguing that this merger amounted to a TUPE transfer and that his dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The Employment Tribunal dismissed B's claim, relying on an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Nicholls and London Borough of Croydon, to hold that there had not been a relevant TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision, but expressed some reservations about the Nicholls decision, on the basis it had considered competition law case authorities, and went on to say that if the analysis in Nicholls is wrong, that needs to be corrected by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was no TUPE transfer. The Court did not share the Employment Appeal Tribunal's reservations about reliance on the Nicholls decision, rejecting the argument that a court or tribunal can or should take a different approach to deciding whether an entity is engaged in economic activity depending on whether it is deciding an employment or a competition dispute. The relevant legal concept in both situations is a facet of the regulation of an internal market and it would be incoherent for different principles to apply as between competition and employment cases. The court held the tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal had taken the correct approach to economic activity. A finding that a public body is not engaged in economic activity means TUPE does not apply and this renders further consideration of whether the body is exercising public functions or necessary. Having found a lack of economic activity, the Tribunal had not erred in refusing to also consider the issue of a transfer of administrative functions. The Court of Appeal's decision removes the previous uncertainty about the correctness of the Nicholls decision in the context of the commissioning of public sector services, both inside and outside the National Health Service. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The Court of Appeal has provided useful clarity on whether there was an economic activity which could transfer under TUPE or a reorganisation of public administrative authorities/transfer of such functions between them which do not. Listen along to find out more!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Bicknell and another versus NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board in which the Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the merger of NHS clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region amounted to a TUPE transfer. The key focus of the case was the border between economic activities which can transfer under TUPE, and public administrative functions, which do not transfer. In this case, the employee, B, worked as clinical lead GP of a clinical commissioning group in Nottinghamshire. In April 2020, several clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region merged into a single clinical commissioning group. B was dismissed following this merger and brought a claim arguing that this merger amounted to a TUPE transfer and that his dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The Employment Tribunal dismissed B's claim, relying on an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Nicholls and London Borough of Croydon, to hold that there had not been a relevant TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision, but expressed some reservations about the Nicholls decision, on the basis it had considered competition law case authorities, and went on to say that if the analysis in Nicholls is wrong, that needs to be corrected by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was no TUPE transfer. The Court did not share the Employment Appeal Tribunal's reservations about reliance on the Nicholls decision, rejecting the argument that a court or tribunal can or should take a different approach to deciding whether an entity is engaged in economic activity depending on whether it is deciding an employment or a competition dispute. The relevant legal concept in both situations is a facet of the regulation of an internal market and it would be incoherent for different principles to apply as between competition and employment cases. The court held the tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal had taken the correct approach to economic activity. A finding that a public body is not engaged in economic activity means TUPE does not apply and this renders further consideration of whether the body is exercising public functions or necessary. Having found a lack of economic activity, the Tribunal had not erred in refusing to also consider the issue of a transfer of administrative functions. The Court of Appeal's decision removes the previous uncertainty about the correctness of the Nicholls decision in the context of the commissioning of public sector services, both inside and outside the National Health Service. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Description
The Court of Appeal has provided useful clarity on whether there was an economic activity which could transfer under TUPE or a reorganisation of public administrative authorities/transfer of such functions between them which do not. Listen along to find out more!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Bicknell and another versus NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board in which the Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the merger of NHS clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region amounted to a TUPE transfer. The key focus of the case was the border between economic activities which can transfer under TUPE, and public administrative functions, which do not transfer. In this case, the employee, B, worked as clinical lead GP of a clinical commissioning group in Nottinghamshire. In April 2020, several clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region merged into a single clinical commissioning group. B was dismissed following this merger and brought a claim arguing that this merger amounted to a TUPE transfer and that his dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The Employment Tribunal dismissed B's claim, relying on an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Nicholls and London Borough of Croydon, to hold that there had not been a relevant TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision, but expressed some reservations about the Nicholls decision, on the basis it had considered competition law case authorities, and went on to say that if the analysis in Nicholls is wrong, that needs to be corrected by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was no TUPE transfer. The Court did not share the Employment Appeal Tribunal's reservations about reliance on the Nicholls decision, rejecting the argument that a court or tribunal can or should take a different approach to deciding whether an entity is engaged in economic activity depending on whether it is deciding an employment or a competition dispute. The relevant legal concept in both situations is a facet of the regulation of an internal market and it would be incoherent for different principles to apply as between competition and employment cases. The court held the tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal had taken the correct approach to economic activity. A finding that a public body is not engaged in economic activity means TUPE does not apply and this renders further consideration of whether the body is exercising public functions or necessary. Having found a lack of economic activity, the Tribunal had not erred in refusing to also consider the issue of a transfer of administrative functions. The Court of Appeal's decision removes the previous uncertainty about the correctness of the Nicholls decision in the context of the commissioning of public sector services, both inside and outside the National Health Service. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The Court of Appeal has provided useful clarity on whether there was an economic activity which could transfer under TUPE or a reorganisation of public administrative authorities/transfer of such functions between them which do not. Listen along to find out more!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Bicknell and another versus NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board in which the Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the merger of NHS clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region amounted to a TUPE transfer. The key focus of the case was the border between economic activities which can transfer under TUPE, and public administrative functions, which do not transfer. In this case, the employee, B, worked as clinical lead GP of a clinical commissioning group in Nottinghamshire. In April 2020, several clinical commissioning groups in the Nottinghamshire region merged into a single clinical commissioning group. B was dismissed following this merger and brought a claim arguing that this merger amounted to a TUPE transfer and that his dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The Employment Tribunal dismissed B's claim, relying on an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Nicholls and London Borough of Croydon, to hold that there had not been a relevant TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision, but expressed some reservations about the Nicholls decision, on the basis it had considered competition law case authorities, and went on to say that if the analysis in Nicholls is wrong, that needs to be corrected by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was no TUPE transfer. The Court did not share the Employment Appeal Tribunal's reservations about reliance on the Nicholls decision, rejecting the argument that a court or tribunal can or should take a different approach to deciding whether an entity is engaged in economic activity depending on whether it is deciding an employment or a competition dispute. The relevant legal concept in both situations is a facet of the regulation of an internal market and it would be incoherent for different principles to apply as between competition and employment cases. The court held the tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal had taken the correct approach to economic activity. A finding that a public body is not engaged in economic activity means TUPE does not apply and this renders further consideration of whether the body is exercising public functions or necessary. Having found a lack of economic activity, the Tribunal had not erred in refusing to also consider the issue of a transfer of administrative functions. The Court of Appeal's decision removes the previous uncertainty about the correctness of the Nicholls decision in the context of the commissioning of public sector services, both inside and outside the National Health Service. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
