Mr C Stockley First v EV Cargo Limited Second Respondent: North West Trucks Services Limited — 2024

The tribunal determined only the preliminary TUPE issue between the first and second respondents. It held that the claimant’s employment did not transfer to North West Trucks Services Limited under Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, so the proceedings against the second respondent were dismissed and the case was to proceed to a final hearing against the first respondent only.

The tribunal found that repair and maintenance work on the 76 new DAF trucks operated under a DAF MultiSupport Agreement was never work carried out by the first respondent itself. The first respondent paid a monthly fee of £510 per vehicle, and the tribunal concluded that the activity of maintaining those trucks was not something that ceased to be done by the first respondent and then continued by the second respondent. It also found that there was no organised grouping of employees with the principal purpose of carrying out that work on behalf of the first respondent.

For the remainder of the fleet, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was a workshop supervisor with a broad role and that his truck-related work increased over time, but it found he was not wholly or mainly assigned to the vehicles said to have transferred. Of the first respondent’s 40 trucks, 9 were not intended to transfer to the second respondent, and the second respondent took responsibility for 19 of the remaining 31 trucks from 1 November 2022. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s breakdown showing 41.5 hours of work over the relevant period on vehicles later on the second respondent’s compliance schedule, which it treated as 14.9% of his working time.

The tribunal compared the work done before and after 1 November 2022 and concluded there was a significant difference between the activities. It therefore rejected the submission that the claimant was wholly or mainly assigned to the transferred work, and held that there had been no service provision change under Regulation 3.