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
  • 07 August 2026
  • Employment

ACAS Draft New Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

ACAS have published a draft Code on 30 July 2026, which will replace the 2015 ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures when the Code is finalised at the end of September 2026.

art
  • 06 August 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

The rise of the AI-powered individual: Is your business ready?

Artificial intelligence is changing the data protection landscape, but perhaps not in the way many organisations expected. Much of the discussion has centred on businesses adopting AI and ensuring they comply with the UK GDPR.

Pub
  • 06 August 2026
  • Employment

Employment law changes in 2026: What you need to know

With ongoing changes to UK employment law, staying updated is more challenging than ever. Join Monica Atwal and Harry Berryman for a live webinar covering 2026 HR changes and key employment law updates on Thursday 17 September.

Pub
  • 04 August 2026
  • Employment

From Opportunity to Employment: Building Inclusive Workplaces Together | Hosted by Breakthrough Supported Employment

Join Breakthrough Supported Employment for a live seminar on building inclusive workplaces at Malmaison Reading. Clarkslegal’s Lucy White will speak alongside industry experts, sharing insights on fostering diversity and creating equitable opportunities.

art
  • 04 August 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Advantages of arbitration over litigation

Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes outside the court system, with the dispute being determined by an independent arbitrator or tribunal rather than a judge. Whether a dispute is best resolved through arbitration or litigation will ultimately depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

art
  • 04 August 2026
  • Immigration

Home Office revokes EU Settlement Scheme Status ‘Granted in Error’ – What does This Mean for EU Citizens?

Recent reports that the Home Office has begun revoking the immigration status of some EU nationals on the basis that it was originally “granted in error” have caused understandable concern among immigration practitioners and those with status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).