Search

How can we help?

Icon

TUPE regulations apply even where large part of job becomes automated

In Anglo Beef Processors v Longland and Meat & Livestock Commercial Services, Mr Longland had been employed as a carcass service officer for Meat & Livestock, manually classifying carcasses in an abattoir.

Anglo Beef (the client) contracted with Meat & Livestock to provide carcass inspection services. Mr Longland occasionally used computer software to electronically classify the carcasses but in the majority of the time, he classified the caracasses manually. Anglo Beef eventually decided that they would take the classifying services back in-house and use computer software going forward. Anglo Beef terminated the contract with Meat & Livestock.

Both the ET and EAT upheld Mr Longland’s claim and reiterated the importance of adopting a common sense approach to whether the activities remained “fundamentally the same.”

Mr Longland claimed at tribunal that the TUPE Regulations applied and as a result, he should transfer to Anglo Beef on the basis that the activities carried out were “fundamentally the same” both before and after the transfer.

Both the ET and EAT upheld Mr Longland’s claim and reiterated the importance of adopting a common sense approach to whether the activities remained “fundamentally the same.” The activity of processing and labelling carcasses did not change (whether done manually or electronically) and so Mr Longland should have TUPE transferred to Anglo Beef.

This case follows in the same vein as cases before it, the mode of carrying out an activity may change but the activity may remain fundamentally the same. This area of law is very fact specific so for more information, please contact our TUPE Solicitors.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 27 February 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

How (not!) to serve a winding up petition on a company using a default address

This case concerned an appeal by DG Resources Ltd (“DG”) on the basis that a winding up petition brought by HMRC (the “Petition”) was invalidly served.

art
  • 25 February 2026
  • Immigration

Dual Nationals Take Note: UK Travel Rules Changed on 25 February 2026

From 25 February 2026, important procedural changes came into force affecting how dual citizens travel to the United Kingdom.

Pub
  • 23 February 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: Planning for the Worst – Episode 2

Join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin for the second episode of our podcast series on shareholder disputes, where they explore what happens when business partners disagree.

art
  • 20 February 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

EMI Schemes – following the 2025 Autumn Statement

In an economic landscape where attracting, retaining and incentivising key employees is key to commercial success.

art
  • 19 February 2026

Clarkslegal’s international legal alliance TAGLaw achieves top “Elite” – Band 1 ranking by Chambers & Partners 2026

Clarkslegal’s international legal alliance, TAGLaw®, has again been recognised by Chambers & Partners as “Elite – Band 1” for 2026—the highest ranking awarded to legal networks and alliances.

art
  • 17 February 2026
  • Employment

The Employment Rights Act – A shift in power: why employers will face greater pressure from industrial action and union relations in 2026

Substantial union-related changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025 will take effect on 18 February 2026, ushering in significant shifts in the legal landscape for industrial action in the UK.