TUPE - Organised Grouping of Employees

The EAT has recently handed down its judgement in Seawell v Ceva Freight Limited (1) Moffat (2). Her Honour Smith J held that it was not enough that one person worked 100% on a clients business but instead there must be an 'organised grouping of employees.'

On the facts it was clear whilst Mr Moffat worked 100% on the clients business, there was not enough evidence to say that he was an organised grouping of employees. He did not carry out the activities concerned which in this case were the activities, after the service change, carried out by the client instead of by the previous contractor.

There was no basis for finding in this case that there was a group of employees specifically organised for this particular contract. An organised grouping of employees denotes a deliberate and conscious putting together of a group of employees for the purpose of the relevant client work. As the EAT put it: "it is not a matter of happenstance".


There was no such conscious employee grouping on the facts of the case and this is necessary. As such there was no service provision change and no relevant transfer. In this regard, the previous EAT authorities of Argyll Coastal Services v Stirling (EAT S/0012/11) and Eddie Stobart Limited v Moreman (EAT/0223/11) were to be followed.