Sunderland 700/701 TUPE dispute

[Tetchytyke]

TUPE requires a formal process, which I don't know.

It isn't that straightforward. If it were, any employer which wanted to avoid their TUPE obligations would simply fail to complete the paperwork.

he new employer will need the transferring staff to complete an interview and induction process as standard. Paperwork (valid driving license, ...) needs to be checked and new employment signed for.

You misunderstand TUPE. The point is that your existing employment transfers from the old employer to the new employer. It isn't new employment.

You don't need an interview as there's nothing to be interviewed for- the incoming employer can't reject your transfer just because they don't like you or even because they don't think you're competent.

As @TheGrandWazoo highlighted up thread, TUPE legislation can also bring forward liability for unpaid wages and/or unpaid redundancy to the new employer.

This is something I'd not considered until he mentioned it, but I suspect it is the crux of the matter here. City think they've found a great wheeze to dump the costs of getting rid of their drivers on Go-Ahead. Go-Ahead, rather understandably, are pushing back on this. The poor drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle- no job, and unpaid wages to boot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2026 ==

City has always struck me as being one of those ****ty operators who get rail replacement work and then operate it with ancient vehicles that enthusiasts love but are not really suitable for the general public

The economics of rail replacement work are such that provision often will be through operators who have older vehicles. Usually that's because the buses for rail replacement are usually the buses which are used for schools and other contracts. This even applies where big groups have rail replacement work- when Go North East run Metro replacements they use the old buses in the fleet that are normally used on schools contracts.

Having an older fleet doesn't necessarily make the operators bad.

 

[Resuwen]

Using a 20 year old trident or B7 is one thing, a 1991 Olympian quite another

 

[Teapot42]

The economics of rail replacement work are such that provision often will be through operators who have older vehicles.

It's been notable that for the Sheffield Supertram replacement, City sub-contracted Andrews for some of the services, and it seemed to be mainly their older buses used, ones mostly kept for schools work. I had assumed the value of the contract was too low to allow coaches to be used, but then I guess also for that type of replacement maybe a coach is less suitable.

 

[SLC001]

My understanding is that TUPE does not apply and that the City employees are still employed by the firm. It is for City to make the drivers redundant through the usual procedures making up shortfall in wages, redundancy pay and holiday entitlement not taken. The new contract was I assume issued on an emergency basis and is treated as a temporary arrangement, a period which can last for 3 to maybe 12 months or more. I feel for the drivers here. They either resign or wait for their money from a company that from the feel of things is financially on an edge.
As an aside, is it any wonder that franchise contracts are being awarded to large groups with the financial resources rather than the small independents.

 

[Christophe]

There was an interesting thread about this on the North East Buses forum, which has sadly been taken down. One poster (not sure if he's in here) sounded like he had first had knowledge of City, with tales of drivers not being paid previously, and drivers being told to attend GNE Sunderland depot on transfer day. Which was a surprise to GNE Sunderland staff. Social media posts also suggest the Director was on a 'humanitarian trip' to Ukraine so wasn't around to deal with the fall out at transfer.

There's a 'NOT City Transport' thread (for now) on the North East Forum, where another user has kindly posted links to Companies House detailing other City companies. I had to ask google to educate me as to what a 'twink' was. I'd advise not using an employers laptop if anyone else needs to to the same...

 

[nick291]

There's a 'NOT City Transport' thread (for now) on the North East Forum, where another user has kindly posted links to Companies House detailing other City companies. I had to ask google to educate me as to what a 'twink' was. I'd advise not using an employers laptop if anyone else needs to to the same...

Oh good god they can't even keep personal issues seperate it would seem, definitely seem like an unprofessional outfit

 

[MCR247]

.

There's a 'NOT City Transport' thread (for now) on the North East Forum, where another user has kindly posted links to Companies House detailing other City companies. I had to ask google to educate me as to what a 'twink' was. I'd advise not using an employers laptop if anyone else needs to to the same...

Well now I’m intrigued as to how this crosses over with a bus company

EDIT: Wow the dates of birth of those other ‘directors’ of that company certainly align with that definition..

 

[Andyh82]

is this operator another of these enthusiast dreamer type of operations?

I’m dubious about any operator that calls themselves a ‘group’ but in reality have about half a dozen buses, like you would as a kid playing buses

“City Transport Group”, the company that recently folded in West Yorkshire was “Yorkshire Travel Group”

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I’m dubious about any operator that calls themselves a ‘group’ but in reality have about half a dozen buses, like you would as a kid playing buses

Strong Cityfox Group vibes

 

[Snex]

Well now I’m intrigued as to how this crosses over with a bus company

EDIT: Wow the dates of birth of those other ‘directors’ of that company certainly align with that definition..

If you can get on LinkedIn and go looking through the 'management team'. It gets even worse. There's the same kids as general managers and all sorts. It's very dodgy.

Very unprofessional unit as an understatement.

 

[MCR247]

If you can get on LinkedIn and go looking through the 'management team'. It gets even worse. There's the same kids as general managers and all sorts. It's very dodgy.

Very unprofessional unit as an understatement.

I did a search of the names and (personal) TikTok accounts seemed more prominent than any LinkedIn results One of them had a video of a bus captioned “My new toy!”

 

[nick291]

I did a search of the names and (personal) TikTok accounts seemed more prominent than any LinkedIn results One of them had a video of a bus captioned “My new toy!”

If you can get on LinkedIn and go looking through the 'management team'. It gets even worse. There's the same kids as general managers and all sorts. It's very dodgy.

Very unprofessional unit as an understatement.

I'm surprised the DVSA/TC hasn't stepped in yet(for the City Transport operation)...

 

[Morritt89]

The TUPE dispute is a tricky one but I can potentially give a bit of insight to this.

I used to work for Go Ahead at Sunderland depot. I was there for about 5 years.The last 3 years I moved onto a term time only scholars contract (the route was the only 1 that I was contracted and the only one on my duty card but I could cover service work as and when required). Go Ahead handed back my scholars contract to Durham County Council after we had a pay rise as they were then losing money. I was liable to be TUPE to the new operator but GNE management didn't know how TUPE worked/what they should do so they gave me the option to transfer onto a normal contract or leave. The conditions at GNE were superior (free travel pass for me and my family, pension etc) to the new independent operator.

With regards to City and the Sunderland Connect contract, City were (allegedly) asking Nexus for more money for months before the contract ended with them citing fuel costs. There were also periods where staff went without pay (some did leave). City ended the contract stating fuel costs. Nexus, in the newspaper article, states that they took back control and gave it to GNE on an emergency basis. I wonder if City did surrender the contract (at a date set by them) then Nexus did take it back (that way, making both sides partially statements correct). The last day of operation had pretty much every City vehicle out at some point.

I am also led to believe that the contract is only with GNE for a few months with the new operator taking over at that point potentially making TUPE even more complex - would staff TUPE to the new operator rather than the emergency operator?

 

[omnicity4659]

There was an interesting thread about this on the North East Buses forum, which has sadly been taken down. One poster (not sure if he's in here) sounded like he had first had knowledge of City, with tales of drivers not being paid previously, and drivers being told to attend GNE Sunderland depot on transfer day. Which was a surprise to GNE Sunderland staff. Social media posts also suggest the Director was on a 'humanitarian trip' to Ukraine so wasn't around to deal with the fall out at transfer.

There's a 'NOT City Transport' thread (for now) on the North East Forum, where another user has kindly posted links to Companies House detailing other City companies. I had to ask google to educate me as to what a 'twink' was. I'd advise not using an employers laptop if anyone else needs to to the same...

This would have been me - and you recall correctly.

Other points to note was that Mr Fairchild became verbally abusive to the "employee representative" who was assisting with the supposed TUPE transfer. Most drivers are owed in excess of £5,000 - he's even claiming that drivers who left to work for GNE ahead of the contract ending - or people staying on with the company/A&A Coach Travel - are also due their wages from GNE.

It's my opinion that TUPE will not apply in this case, as GNE's emergency tender is a "short term task" and is therefore (and understandably) exempt from TUPE. Mr Fairchild only believed that TUPE applied because it was mentioned in the wording of the Nexus contract - however that only said that outgoing and incoming operators should discuss the possibility of TUPE.

City's drivers on the Sunderland Connect contract also did the work supplied by Stagecoach Rail Replacement, First Travel Solutions, CMAC, Sheffield Supertram, Tyne and Wear Metro and Shields Ferry on a regular basis - often in a Sunderland Connect branded vehicle!

 

[Andyh82]

City Transport Operations Limited, the company that was until recently known as A&A Coach Travel has now had its licence revoked

If you want some ‘light’ bedtime reading there is an extensive list of faults and failures in the official report

Decision for CITY TRANSPORT OPERATIONS LTD (formerly A & A COACH TRAVEL LTD) (PB2024186)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East for City Transport Operations Ltd and transport manager Antoni La Pilusa

www.gov.uk

For the benefit of doubt, this doesn’t effect the company City Transport Group Limited

 

[stevieinselby]

With such a litany of failures running over several years, the worrying thing is how long it has taken for these cowboys to be struck off ... and concerning that it doesn't affect City Transport Group, seeing as it always to be all one and the same operation.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

With such a litany of failures running over several years, the worrying thing is how long it has taken for these cowboys to be struck off ... and concerning that it doesn't affect City Transport Group, seeing as it always to be all one and the same operation.

From the report I get the impression City Transport Group are firmly on the radar. It does state they're classed as "amber" for various MOT failures etc.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

With such a litany of failures running over several years, the worrying thing is how long it has taken for these cowboys to be struck off ... and concerning that it doesn't affect City Transport Group, seeing as it always to be all one and the same operation.

It is a very sobering read.

 

[Tetchytyke]

With such a litany of failures running over several years, the worrying thing is how long it has taken for these cowboys to be struck off

It demonstrates how hard it is to be a regulator. The regulator has to get everything lined up perfectly to make a public inquiry stick and, in the meantime, there are often few or little regulatory powers open to them to temporarily suspend an operator's licence.

Mr la Pilusa's repute issues are stated in the decision to go back to at least 2008 yet there are no meaningful consequences. He loses his repute, the business loses its O-licence, but ultimately there isn't much to stop him and his business associates coming back round with a different TM and a different corporate entity.

 

[Teapot42]

It demonstrates how hard it is to be a regulator. The regulator has to get everything lined up perfectly to make a public inquiry stick and, in the meantime, there are often few or little regulatory powers open to them to temporarily suspend an operator's licence.

Presumably this is partly down to the potential consequences of a licence being suspended. Especially where service work is concerned, the license is actually a significant part of the value and viability of the company. Services won't just wait for them to get it back, anything tendered or contracted will be moved elsewhere, and commercial work other operators would take on.

I can imagine if a licence was suspended then the operator came out of a public enquiry without sanction they'd be able to take legal action for what would essentially be the loss of their business.

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but the only power that would really be of use would be to in effect take over operations of the company until the enquiry was concluded. This would allow the original operator to resume if exonerated, or would retain the business as a going concern for onward sale if not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Presumably this is partly down to the potential consequences of a licence being suspended. Especially where service work is concerned, the license is actually a significant part of the value and viability of the company. Services won't just wait for them to get it back, anything tendered or contracted will be moved elsewhere, and commercial work other operators would take on.

Absolutely, making a finding of no repute or revoking an O-licence is a big deal and it is right that the regulator has to make a strong case in front of the Traffic Commissioner in order to do it.

The down side, though, is that cowboys can get away with this sort of behaviour for years whilst that case is being prepared.

It wouldn't matter so much if the consequences at the end of it were meaningful. But in many cases they're not. A company can just be wound up and a new company set up. Now if the TC could recommend that Directors be prohibited by the Insolvency Service at the same time, that might help.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It demonstrates how hard it is to be a regulator. The regulator has to get everything lined up perfectly to make a public inquiry stick and, in the meantime, there are often few or little regulatory powers open to them to temporarily suspend an operator's licence.

There is both a pre-eminent responsibility to ensure the public are safe. At the same time (and to a lesser degree), they have to be fair to operators and the people employed and dependant on them and their livelihoods. It is sometimes incredible to think that the TC has to be more legally compliant than some of the operators they are dealing with. In this instance, the standards are deplorable and they've clearly sought to delay and obfuscate the process.

I have sympathy with the TC. They've had their budgets cut over many years and don't have endless resources and remember, there are many more freight operators out there. Yes, they're not carrying people but there's more of them and when something goes wrong with a truck, the outcome can be horrific - see 2015 Bath truck crash.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have sympathy with the TC. They've had their budgets cut over many years and don't have endless resources and remember, there are many more freight operators out there. Yes, they're not carrying people but there's more of them and when something goes wrong with a truck, the outcome can be horrific - see 2015 Bath truck crash.

I do too. The problem is legislative.

You will probably remember, as do I, the horrific truck crash in Sowerby Bridge in 1994 which killed six people. Every single one of the truck's brakes was dangerously worn, it hadn't been inspected for months, and the only criminal consequence was a £5,000 fine. The TM walked away scot-free.

Similar with UK North. There were no real consequences for killing someone. The only criminal consequence they ever received was because they tried to submit fake documents to the TC. If they'd just ignored the TC and VOSA, as Mr la Pilusa seems to have done, they'd probably have got away with it scot-free too.

I'd love to be able to say that things have changed since then but I'm not convinced that they have.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I do too. The problem is legislative.

You will probably remember, as do I, the horrific truck crash in Sowerby Bridge in 1994 which killed six people. Every single one of the truck's brakes was dangerously worn, it hadn't been inspected for months, and the only criminal consequence was a £5,000 fine. The TM walked away scot-free.

Similar with UK North. There were no real consequences for killing someone. The only criminal consequence they ever received was because they tried to submit fake documents to the TC. If they'd just ignored the TC and VOSA, as Mr la Pilusa seems to have done, they'd probably have got away with it scot-free too.

I'd love to be able to say that things have changed since then but I'm not convinced that they have.

I do remember that. It was instances like that and much higher profile ones like the Zeebrugge disaster that led to the law being changed.

Closer to home (literally) was the Bath truck crash in 2015 - a location I pass fairly regularly where 4 people were killed. The driver was exonerated (rightly) and the TM and the fitter were sent down for gross negligence manslaughter for several years.

I'd love the TCs to have the ability and resources to crack down on these rogue operators more quickly. How you stop phoenix firms appearing is more difficult though?

 

[IanXC]

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but the only power that would really be of use would be to in effect take over operations of the company until the enquiry was concluded. This would allow the original operator to resume if exonerated, or would retain the business as a going concern for onward sale if not.

Now if the TC could recommend that Directors be prohibited by the Insolvency Service at the same time, that might help.

These seem like two really positive ideas for reform which entirely fit with the current government's desire to take greater public control over key services provided to the public. I feel a letter to my MP and the DfT coming on.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How you stop phoenix firms appearing is more difficult though?

This is why I think the TC needs to be able to recommend that people involved also be disqualified as Directors. It’s an offence to run a company as a disqualified Director, and that can include where you put a front man in place and hide behind them as a shadow Director.

 

[Statto]

This is why I think the TC needs to be able to recommend that people involved also be disqualified as Directors. It’s an offence to run a company as a disqualified Director, and that can include where you put a front man in place and hide behind them as a shadow Director.

Indeed, kind of reminds me the various run ins with the TC that the notorious Clayton Jones had over the years (i didn't know he died last year) he would have his O' Licence constantly revoked only to set up a new company under a new name a short time later, rinse & repeat.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is why I think the TC needs to be able to recommend that people involved also be disqualified as Directors. It’s an offence to run a company as a disqualified Director, and that can include where you put a front man in place and hide behind them as a shadow Director.

Don’t get me wrong - I do agree it’s what should be done but as we’ve seen with Clayton Jones, his wife simply set up a new business that most definitely wasn’t to do with him My point was it’s not a panacea.

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but the only power that would really be of use would be to in effect take over operations of the company until the enquiry was concluded. This would allow the original operator to resume if exonerated, or would retain the business as a going concern for onward sale if not.

Practically, how does that happen though? Who employs staff, takes on lease agreements?

 

[robertclark125]

Is there any update to the original dispute, between CT and go north east, and have the drivers got a job?

 

[Bristol LHS]

Is there any update to the original dispute, between CT and go north east, and have the drivers got a job?

I don’t know what happened with the drivers, but Go North Easts tenure did turn out to be temporary - JH Coaches (Coach Travel Group) now operating the service for Nexus/City Council/Uni
http://jhcoaches.com/news-and-media...t-operate-sunderland-connect-services-700-701