• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Sunderland 700/701 TUPE dispute

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,889
It seems there is a bit of a dispute regarding the transfer of drivers from City Transport to Go North East according to the Sunderland Echo.

Nine bus drivers who operated the 700 and 701 bus services in Sunderland for City Transport Group say they have been left in limbo without pay, redundancy or a notice period after a dispute over the proposed transfer of their contracts to Go North East.

The drivers say they were informed last month by their employer City Transport they would cease to operate the two Sunderland services but that their current contracts were being transferred to Go North East under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 2006 (TUPE) legislation.

However, when the drivers turned up at Go North East’s Sunderland depot, as instructed, they were informed no such agreement was in place.

The drivers travelled to the company’s head office in Gateshead and say they received the same message.

Bosses at City Transport Group say Go North East are now going to be operating the bus routes and that the drivers’ contracts should be protected and transferred to the new operator under TUPE.

Go North East, however, lay the responsibility in the hands of City Transport, with a spokesperson saying “we are not in a position to comment on outstanding matters relating to the previous operator and its employees”.

The situation has left the drivers in limbo and currently unemployed.

One, who is 25 and who has been a driver for five years, said: “We’ve not received our pay for the month we worked from March to April.

“We’re not asking for special treatment – we just want fairness and clarity.

"We followed the instructions we were given, turned up for work in good faith, and now many of us are left without wages, without answers, and worrying about how we’re going to pay our bills.

“We all have families and mortgages.”

“It’s been stressful for everyone involved and we’re hoping the companies will engage properly so this can be resolved.”

The article carries on at https://www.pressreader.com/uk/sunderland-echo/20260518/281689736452984 with quotes from various parties involved and is now in the hands of ACAS.

I'm no expert on TUPE arrangements/matters, but it sounds quite odd (to me). There's mention that the drivers haven't been paid for March/April - surely it wouldn't be the responsibility of the new employer to pay the wages for work undertaken for their previous employer, even if the transfer of staff went smoothly? If so, that's not something I would have expected.

Hopefully it will be sorted ASAP for nine people involved.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
2,151
Why on earth would City Transport (CT) believe that Go Ahead would be responsible for paying CT staff during their employment there?
is this operator another of these enthusiast dreamer type of operations?
 

mangad

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2014
Messages
727
Location
Stockport
As reported, this is a rather baffling story because there's clearly something missing. Who instructed the drivers to report to Go Ahead? If it was someone at City Transport then why and how did they arrange this without, apparently, Go Ahead knowing? Did someone at Go Ahead actually know? Why were the drivers not paid correctly?

What does seem to be the case is that they are out of a job and somewhere due process has not been followed by someone. Which may well result in solicitors having to get involved.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
2,151
The full story from the Pressreader link shared earlier is copied below, and adds a bit more detail and context as to why the situation has occurred.

“Nine bus drivers who operated the 700 and 701 bus services in Sunderland for City Transport Group say they have been left in limbo without pay, redundancy or a notice period after a dispute over the proposed transfer of their contracts to Go North East.

img
City Transport Group buses at the yard where they are stored.
The drivers say they were informed last month by their employer City Transport they would cease to operate the two Sunderland services but that their current contracts were being transferred to Go North East under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 2006 (TUPE) legislation.

However, when the drivers turned up at Go North East’s Sunderland depot, as instructed, they were informed no such agreement was in place.

The drivers travelled to the company’s head office in Gateshead and say they received the same message.

Bosses at City

Transport Group say Go North East are now going to be operating the bus routes and that the drivers’ contracts should be protected and transferred to the new operator under TUPE.

Go North East, however, lay the responsibility in the hands of City Transport, with a spokesperson saying “we are not in a position to comment on outstanding matters relating to the previous operator and its employees”.

The situation has left the drivers in limbo and currently unemployed.

One, who is 25 and who has been a driver for five years, said: “We’ve not received our pay for the month we worked from March to April.

“We’re not asking for special treatment – we just want fairness and clarity.

"We followed the instructions we were

given, turned up for work in good faith, and now many of us are left without wages, without answers, and worrying about how we’re going to pay our bills.

“We all have families and mortgages.”

“It’s been stressful for everyone involved and we’re hoping the companies will engage properly so this can be resolved.”

After being contacted by the Echo, a City Transport Group spokesperson said: “We are concerned to hear of difficulties that former staff are encountering with the new operator of

this contract.

“We became informally aware that the new operator was to be Go North East on April 20, with them to start from April 27.

"We made contact that day to attempt to discuss arrangements and were met with flimsy legal arguments about why they did not wish to undertake the various statutory things that need to be done in a Service Provision Change situation.

“Employment legislation provides that where a contract changes from one service provider to another – still working

We’re not asking for special treatment – we just want fairness
on behalf of the same end client, in this case Nexus – that the employment of the staff in an ‘organised grouping’ specific to that contract is protected.

“As Sunderland

Connect is a long-term service which has operated for around 10 years, and with its funding secured until at least autumn 2027, it‘s not a “short term task” regardless of how long our tenure was, or how long or short the tenure of the new operator may be.

“This legislation is the TUPE. City Transport complied with legal duties upon us to notify affected employees and are disgusted at the treatment they’ve received at the hands of a much larger business.”

The statement goes on to claim that any money owed is the obligation of Go North East.

We put this statement to Go North East and a spokesperson responded: “Go North East was requested by Nexus to operate Sunderland Connect services 700 and 701 on an emergency basis following the termination of the previous operator’s contract.

“We appreciate this will be an uncertain situation for those affected, however, we are not in a position to comment on outstanding matters relating to the previous operator and its employees."

The bus drivers have released a joint statement, calling for clarity, rights to be adhered to, and to be paid any money owed.

A spokesperson said: “From the drivers’ perspective, the issue is not complicated. We were informed in writing that we would transfer under TUPE to the new operator, Go North East, following the change of operator on the Sunderland Connect service. Based on those written assurances, we attended for work believing our employment had transferred lawfully.

“Instead, drivers were turned away and informed that no TUPE transfer had been accepted.

"Since then, many drivers have been left without work, without wages owed to them, without holiday pay, and without formal notice explaining their employment status.

“We feel caught in the middle of a legal argument between operators while being left with no clear answers.

“The personal impact on drivers has been severe. These are working people with rent, mortgages, children, bills, and financial responsibilities.”

The dispute is currently in the hands of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), an independent UK public body which looks to resolve workplace disputes. If they fail to get a satisfactory resolution, the drivers say they will take the matter to an employment tribunal.

The spokesperson added: “Drivers are hopeful all parties will engage constructively with ACAS so matters can be resolved fairly and employees can recover what is rightfully owed, without the need to escalate proceedings to an employment tribunal.

“We hope those involved will respect the seriousness of the situation and the impact it’s having.”

“We are ordinary drivers who simply turned up for work in good faith. Instead, we are left in limbo between two operators while trying to understand who is actually responsible for our jobs, wages, and rights.”

The Sunderland Connect service is overseen by Nexus.

Helen Mathews, commercial director at Nexus said: “Following an ongoing review of performance of the 700 and 701 Sunderland Connect bus services, we’ve taken the decision to end the contract with the current operator.

“This route provides a vital link between the city centre and Sunderland University’s St Peter’s Campus and we therefore want to secure the best possible service for customers moving forward.

“The new temporary operator, Go North East, began operating the route from 27 April. This has allowed the continuation of service whilst an appropriate procurement process takes place.

“We recognise the uncertainty this situation is creating for the individuals affected and appreciate why concerns are being raised.

“We do care about the people impacted, as well as the customers that use this service. We’ve taken all reasonable steps to promptly engage with both parties but cannot comment further on the dialogue between the outgoing and incoming suppliers.”
 
Last edited:

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,167
Location
Elginshire
Why on earth would City Transport (CT) believe that Go Ahead would be responsible for paying CT staff during their employment there?
is this operator another of these enthusiast dreamer type of operations?
I think it's fair to say that one of the company officers is fairly well known.

2 officers / 1 resignation
FAIRCHILD, James David
Correspondence addressSuite 591, 33 Great George Street, Leeds, United Kingdom, LS1 3AJ
Role ActiveDirectorDate of birthJuly 1980Appointed on13 July 2016
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
s this operator another of these enthusiast dreamer type of operations?
I couldn't possibly comment.

What does seem to be the case is that they are out of a job and somewhere due process has not been followed by someone. Which may well result in solicitors having to get involved.
TUPE is complicated and can be rather messy in these sorts of situations.

In general, if a service is provided by one outsourcer and the contract moves to a new outsourcer then TUPE will apply. The staff working on the contract with the first outsourcer should move over to the second outsourcer. An example might be a security guard who is employed to guard a specific building or group of buildings owned by the same contracting party; if the contract for the security of that building moves to a new outsourcer then the guard should move with it.

Where it gets complicated is where the staff don't specifically work on one contract. In this case, TUPE might not apply.

An example might be a big bus company who has a split of tendered and commercial work. If a driver is dedicated to a specific tendered route or group of tendered routes then TUPE may well apply. If drivers are taken from a common pool and some days they might drive tendered routes and some days they might drive the commercial rotes then TUPE is a lot less likely to apply. There needs to be a direct link between the contract and the employee.

In this case, if the drivers were dedicated to the 700 and 701 routes then from the outgoing operator's perspective TUPE ought to apply. That's exactly what City Transport Group have said in their statement.

But if Go don't intend to have dedicated drivers for the 700 and 701 then they could argue that TUPE shouldn't apply and that, actually, the drivers have been made redundant by the outgoing operator. It's certainly preferable for Go to argue this as, without TUPE, they won't have the hassle of a small subset of drivers being on a different contract.

So it might not be that someone has done something wrong. The outgoing operator can reasonably believe TUPE applies whilst the incoming operator can reasonably believe TUPE does not apply.

My gut instinct is that City Transport Group are right and that TUPE does apply, particularly given Go North East management's rather flexible attitude recently to other aspects of employment law. But that's just a gut instinct based on the media reporting. I wouldn't like to stake my mortgage on it.

I feel very sorry for the drivers caught in the middle, though, as they definitely haven't done anything wrong.
 
Last edited:

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
4,601
Isn’t a key point that it isn’t a contract that has been lost at tender in the normal way

City have abandoned the contract mid term and Go have picked up a short notice short term emergency contract.

Considering it says they are owned wages from City it sounds like they’ve just washed their hands with it and sent drivers to Go hoping they’d sort it all out.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
Isn’t a key point that it isn’t a contract that has been lost at tender in the normal way

City have abandoned the contract mid term and Go have picked up a short notice short term emergency contract.
It looks as though Nexus took the contract off them, not that City voluntarily relinquished it.

From the above article:

Helen Mathews, commercial director at Nexus said: “Following an ongoing review of performance of the 700 and 701 Sunderland Connect bus services, we’ve taken the decision to end the contract with the current operator.

From what's in the media I do think that TUPE ought to have applied. But that's only based on what's in the media.

I also think that anyone who searches for the name James Fairchild will be able to make their own mind up about City Transport Group. But that doesn't mean that Go aren't in the wrong in this specific case.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,553
TUPE is complicated and can be rather messy in these sorts of situations.

In general, if a service is provided by one outsourcer and the contract moves to a new outsourcer then TUPE will apply. The staff working on the contract with the first outsourcer should move over to the second outsourcer. An example might be a security guard who is employed to guard a specific building or group of buildings owned by the same contracting party; if the contract for the security of that building moves to a new outsourcer then the guard should move with it.

Where it gets complicated is where the staff don't specifically work on one contract. In this case, TUPE might not apply.

An example might be a big bus company who has a split of tendered and commercial work. If a driver is dedicated to a specific tendered route or group of tendered routes then TUPE may well apply. If drivers are taken from a common pool and some days they might drive tendered routes and some days they might drive the commercial rotes then TUPE is a lot less likely to apply. There needs to be a direct link between the contract and the employee.

In this case, if the drivers were dedicated to the 700 and 701 routes then from the outgoing operator's perspective TUPE ought to apply. That's exactly what City Transport Group have said in their statement.

But if Go don't intend to have dedicated drivers for the 700 and 701 then they could argue that TUPE shouldn't apply and that, actually, the drivers have been made redundant by the outgoing operator. It's certainly preferable for Go to argue this as, without TUPE, they won't have the hassle of a small subset of drivers being on a different contract.

So it might not be that someone has done something wrong. The outgoing operator can reasonably believe TUPE applies whilst the incoming operator can reasonably believe TUPE does not apply.

My gut instinct is that City Transport Group are right and that TUPE does apply, particularly given Go North East management's rather flexible attitude recently to other aspects of employment law. But that's just a gut instinct based on the media reporting. I wouldn't like to stake my mortgage on it.

I feel very sorry for the drivers caught in the middle, though, as they definitely haven't done anything wrong.
Just to note that the perspective of the receiving employer about how the roles will be fulfilled is of limited relevance - what matters is the position about the roles employed at the original employer.

From experience with outsourcing contracts, it would also be interesting to see what the Nexus contracts actually say about Nexus' role in any TUPE situation, especially where they terminate a contract (as here).

Like you, my hunch is that Go North East have obligations under TUPE, but I also suspect that they, Nexus and City Transport are all dancing round handbags to avoid paying for people that they fundamentally don't want to employ.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
I also suspect that they, Nexus and City Transport are all dancing round handbags to avoid paying for people that they fundamentally don't want to employ.
I doubt that there's any adverse feeling from any party towards the drivers caught in the middle of it.

I suspect it comes down to one thing: money. I suspect that City don't want to (or perhaps can't) pay them redundancy. My opinion is that Go-Ahead don't or won't want a handful of drivers on separate terms and conditions to the rest of their drivers, especially after such a bitter industrial dispute with their drivers about terms and conditions. Go-Ahead are still chronically short of drivers so I doubt it is that Go-Ahead don't want to employ them, more that they don't want to employ them on non-Go terms.

I'd also be interested in what the Nexus contract says. My experience is that local authorities often don't give it enough consideration. I saw it in my old sector where one charity lost a civil legal aid contract to another. The incoming organisation had costed their bid on paying their staff quite a bit less money than the incumbent. Turns out TUPE applied after all and they were stuck with the staff on higher wages. Oops. People working as legal advisers on civil legal aid contracts knew what their legal rights were, who would have thought it.

Ironically, in this case the drivers may be better off arguing that TUPE doesn't apply and that City Transport Group have to pay them redundancy. If City can't pay, the NI Fund will pay instead.

They can then cross the road and get a job with Go-Ahead or Stagecoach or whoever.
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,461
I doubt that there's any adverse feeling from any party towards the drivers caught in the middle of it.
I wouldn't make that assumption. It is quite possible that some or all of the affected employees have previously worked for Go-Ahead and left in not good terms. (Most PCV holders have obtained their licence at one of the big bus companies, and quite possibly worked for both before going to an outfit like City)

I suspect it comes down to one thing: money. I suspect that City don't want to (or perhaps can't) pay them redundancy.
I'm pretty sure that City won't want to pay redundancy. And neither should they if TUPE applies. (and it may not for some technical reason of course).

My opinion is that Go-Ahead don't or won't want a handful of drivers on separate terms and conditions to the rest of their drivers, especially after such a bitter industrial dispute with their drivers about terms and conditions. Go-Ahead are still chronically short of drivers so I doubt it is that Go-Ahead don't want to employ them, more that they don't want to employ them on non-Go terms.
They could negotiate with them to work on Go-Ahead terms (on the assumption that City terms are unlikely to be better - but they may be different in some way of course), which is often what happens in these circumstances, or Go Ahead could retain them on existing terms at some inconvenience. If they want those particular individuals at all.

They can then cross the road and get a job with Go-Ahead or Stagecoach or whoever.

Perhaps neither employer would take them, for reasons above......... If Go-ahead are really as short as you say, and these people are potential star employees, why would Go-Ahead not make some accommodation with them and take them with open arms?
 

Observer

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2014
Messages
799
In general do drivers tend to jump over to the subsquent operator following change of contract for local service routes?

As my understanding is that it doesn't seem to happen much unless it's a franchise change. Some drivers may have previously worked for the other operator and may had their own reasons for leaving.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,461
In general do drivers tend to jump over to the subsquent operator following change of contract for local service routes?

As my understanding is that it doesn't seem to happen much unless it's a franchise change. Some drivers may have previously worked for the other operator and may had their own reasons for leaving.
I don't think it happens much - most likely if the loss of contracts at one company if too large a percentage of the available work to absorb the surplus of drivers, or if the work lost is of a specialist nature in some way or another.
There are rules (alluded to in earlier posts) about the employees being mainly working on the contract(s) that have been lost. It is not often straightforward in the contract transfer (as opposed to complete undertaking), and a potential conflict ground if either or both the employees and new employer do not wish the transfer to take place, for one reason or another.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,670
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I couldn't possibly comment.


TUPE is complicated and can be rather messy in these sorts of situations.

In general, if a service is provided by one outsourcer and the contract moves to a new outsourcer then TUPE will apply. The staff working on the contract with the first outsourcer should move over to the second outsourcer. An example might be a security guard who is employed to guard a specific building or group of buildings owned by the same contracting party; if the contract for the security of that building moves to a new outsourcer then the guard should move with it.

Where it gets complicated is where the staff don't specifically work on one contract. In this case, TUPE might not apply.

An example might be a big bus company who has a split of tendered and commercial work. If a driver is dedicated to a specific tendered route or group of tendered routes then TUPE may well apply. If drivers are taken from a common pool and some days they might drive tendered routes and some days they might drive the commercial rotes then TUPE is a lot less likely to apply. There needs to be a direct link between the contract and the employee.

In this case, if the drivers were dedicated to the 700 and 701 routes then from the outgoing operator's perspective TUPE ought to apply. That's exactly what City Transport Group have said in their statement.

But if Go don't intend to have dedicated drivers for the 700 and 701 then they could argue that TUPE shouldn't apply and that, actually, the drivers have been made redundant by the outgoing operator. It's certainly preferable for Go to argue this as, without TUPE, they won't have the hassle of a small subset of drivers being on a different contract.

So it might not be that someone has done something wrong. The outgoing operator can reasonably believe TUPE applies whilst the incoming operator can reasonably believe TUPE does not apply.

My gut instinct is that City Transport Group are right and that TUPE does apply, particularly given Go North East management's rather flexible attitude recently to other aspects of employment law. But that's just a gut instinct based on the media reporting. I wouldn't like to stake my mortgage on it.

I feel very sorry for the drivers caught in the middle, though, as they definitely haven't done anything wrong.
In this case, any split would presumably be between regular scheduled work and other work such as the various private contracts/solutions advertised on theor website. City Transport Group only operated the 700/701 as registered services and had no other tenders nor any commercial routes.

For what it's worth, the two routes in question seemed to need three vehicles for Monday to Friday daytime, two vehicles for Saturdays, and one vehicle for later evening service (roughly 7-10pm). I'm not sure whether that would generally correspond to nine drivers and would need nine devoted solely to that contract?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,553
I don't think it happens much - most likely if the loss of contracts at one company if too large a percentage of the available work to absorb the surplus of drivers, or if the work lost is of a specialist nature in some way or another.
There are rules (alluded to in earlier posts) about the employees being mainly working on the contract(s) that have been lost. It is not often straightforward in the contract transfer (as opposed to complete undertaking), and a potential conflict ground if either or both the employees and new employer do not wish the transfer to take place, for one reason or another.
That comes back to the definition of the affected individuals, and whether they form an "organised grouping". There is plenty of precedent for what happens where a group is being split because of a partial transfer, and the rules can be followed relatively straightforwardly.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
In general do drivers tend to jump over to the subsquent operator following change of contract for local service routes?

As my understanding is that it doesn't seem to happen much unless it's a franchise change.
There needs to be a direct link between the employee and the supply of service. It has to be an "organised grouping."

Take, for example, a cleaner who is contracted to clean the same Government building every day. If cleaning company A loses the contract to cleaning company B, that cleaner should TUPE across from A to B.

In many cases in the bus industry there won't be that direct link. A driver will likely be in a pool of drivers who operate a range of routes. Some days they might drive the tendered route, other days they might drive another tendered route, and other days again they might drive a commercial route. If there's no direct link then the driver doesn't TUPE across.

As you say, franchising- at least as seen in Manchester and Merseyside- is usually different as all the routes from a specific garage form a job lot. There is that organised grouping and so the drivers will TUPE from franchise A to franchise B. It's how it works on the railway where, when a new franchisee (or GBR) takes over, the drivers/guards/etc TUPE across.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

They could negotiate with them to work on Go-Ahead terms (on the assumption that City terms are unlikely to be better - but they may be different in some way of course)
Various posters on the North East Buses forum have pointedly referred to people being tempted to City by the money and repenting their decision at leisure. So, at least superficially, it may well be that City did pay more. I don't know, and I can't see what wages City were paying, but Go-Ahead were the worst payers in the region for quite some time. It's why the industrial dispute was so nasty.

Bear in mind that things like pensions and other perks are not included in TUPE, so it may be that City added 50p/hour to the wage but offered a crap pension and didn't offer staff travel.

You also have to be incredibly careful in any employment dispute that you don't inadvertently accept something and undermine or even completely wipe out your position. If Go-Ahead were to argue that TUPE doesn't apply but hey, we need you anyway so here's a lower wage and worse terms, that could well come back to bite them. Same if the drivers agree with Go-Ahead a change to the wages or terms.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
23,011
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
There's a lot to unpack but essentially, Nexus would've awarded the contract on the basis of it being non-dedicated staff, and there would be no expectation of TUPE. However, when it was CT's only stage work, the workforce almost becomes dedicated by default.

CT has had the contract stripped from them, on grounds of performance? If that's correct and Nexus has issued an emergency tender, it would seem unfair to expect ANY operator in that instance to then be obligated to pay monies that are owed to drivers (as CT took the revenue) and also a potential redundancy even though the legislation may be drafted in that way.

I feel sorry for the drivers who seem blameless in this. Go Ahead probably didn't foresee this being an issue - it seldom is - and they may only be doing the emergency tender for a matter of weeks until it is retendered. City Transport also have obligations, legal and moral, with a legal obligation to consult and a moral obligation to look after your staff until the point they are no longer yours. Now whether that hasn't happened because of the speed of what has happened, can't say, but it looks like a right mess.

As for how good or bad GNE was paying in relation to the strike, they were the lowest locally paid comparatively but only because Arriva upped their pay. During the dispute, Unite never drew a comparison with other local pay rates - it was always with Go North West - and that was telling. IIRC, I think part of the dispute also centred around removal of travel time that had previously been paid e.g. from Stanley to Consett, to Riverside from Chester le Street, when those depots closed/relocated.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
it would seem unfair to expect ANY operator in that instance to then be obligated to pay monies that are owed to drivers (as CT took the revenue) and also a potential redundancy even though the legislation may be drafted in that way.
That's a point I hadn't actually considered- under TUPE, the new employer is responsible for unpaid wages.

No wonder Go-Ahead didn't want to accept TUPE!
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,824
Take, for example, a cleaner who is contracted to clean the same Government building every day. If cleaning company A loses the contract to cleaning company B, that cleaner should TUPE across from A to B.

And to expand on this a little, because it was a real-life example not long after the TUPE regulations were first brought in, in this case if cleaning company A had lost the contract because of the poor performance of their cleaners, they would still have transferred under TUPE to company B. TUPE is not a substitute for performance management
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,553
There's a lot to unpack but essentially, Nexus would've awarded the contract on the basis of it being non-dedicated staff, and there would be no expectation of TUPE. However, when it was CT's only stage work, the workforce almost becomes dedicated by default.

CT has had the contract stripped from them, on grounds of performance? If that's correct and Nexus has issued an emergency tender, it would seem unfair to expect ANY operator in that instance to then be obligated to pay monies that are owed to drivers (as CT took the revenue) and also a potential redundancy even though the legislation may be drafted in that way.
The point is that it is the legislation, and that the purpose of the legislation is to protect employees when there is a transfer. As the application of TUPE is governed by law and not contract, the application should be automatic - and Nexus should have considered this in their emergency tender. If they wished to prevent a TUPE risk (and bear in mind that as the outsource customer, TUPE can protect their interests by ensuring staff are available), they should have insisted on a contract with CT that required a mixed workforce so that no employee would work enough to be in scope for transfer.

Ultimately, this should be between Go NE, CT, and Nexus, and they should be working to protect the interests of the staff caught up in this through no fault of their own.

However, it's also worth noting that (though unlikely in this case), changes to TUPE in the Coalition years mean that a new employer can make transferred staff redundant immediately (subject of course to complying with other redundancy legislation).
 

richard13

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2019
Messages
282
According to ACAS, TUPE does not apply to short term events or contracts, which may well apply here as it is only an emergency short term contract.

The drivers' employment contract might need to say they were employed solely for the 700/701 and not just as a company driver useful for rail replacement work or coach hire, etc as well, if required. The TUPE group requirement. City Transport's careers page includes:
  • Must be able to work all types of shift patterns. (Early mornings, Late nights, being away from home a night or 2 every now and again)
If that is in the driver's contracts then they would not be dedicated to the 700/701. The industry does not normally employ staff on specific route contracts.

Nexus might need to approve that if they were dedicated. For many contracts the employee's normal place of work would effectively specify the contract and not a general office / depot. Relief and management staff at head office won't often TUPE unless full time on the contract.

Why Nexus cancelled the contract might be relevant. Lack of buses or lack of drivers or ...

As the summaries of TUPE say, it is a complex area of law and so a lawyer's delight.

Would be interesting to here the outcome.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,553
According to ACAS, TUPE does not apply to short term events or contracts, which may well apply here as it is only an emergency short term contract.

The drivers' employment contract might need to say they were employed solely for the 700/701 and not just as a company driver useful for rail replacement work or coach hire, etc as well, if required. The TUPE group requirement. City Transport's careers page includes:
  • Must be able to work all types of shift patterns. (Early mornings, Late nights, being away from home a night or 2 every now and again)
If that is in the driver's contracts then they would not be dedicated to the 700/701. The industry does not normally employ staff on specific route contracts.

Nexus might need to approve that if they were dedicated. For many contracts the employee's normal place of work would effectively specify the contract and not a general office / depot. Relief and management staff at head office won't often TUPE unless full time on the contract.

Why Nexus cancelled the contract might be relevant. Lack of buses or lack of drivers or ...

As the summaries of TUPE say, it is a complex area of law and so a lawyer's delight.

Would be interesting to here the outcome.
The question is less about whether an individual is dedicated to a contract, and more about whether they are fulfilling one of the job roles that would be in scope to transfer between employers. That is primarily based on the facts of the work they do, rather than their contract. The short term position is also vague, but as it appears that the intention is to keep running these routes, it's unlikely to apply - again, as you say, a lawyers' playground

Those on the front line are much more likely to transfer than those in back office roles, unless the transfer is sufficiently extensive that some of those back office roles would also transfer.
 

Ballyheigue

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2025
Messages
349
Location
Leeds
Are City Travel and A&A Coaches (Famous for not operating service 30 in the Leeds area, and when they did they used any old wreck) owned by the same person? If so then it should be easy to guess why Nexus stopped the contract, A&A hacked WYCA off so much that they eventually took similar action.
 

Resuwen

Member
Joined
28 Nov 2023
Messages
289
Location
East Lothian
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
 

nick291

Member
Joined
7 Sep 2024
Messages
450
Location
Bristol
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
Seems to be a running theme in the industry since COVID I've noticed...
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,630
Location
Isle of Man
Are City Travel and A&A Coaches (Famous for not operating service 30 in the Leeds area, and when they did they used any old wreck) owned by the same person?
No, but James Fairchild (who owns City) was involved with A&A. Mr Fairchild was the person involved in that horrible employment tribunal a year or two ago.
 

Dwarfer1979

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2025
Messages
452
Location
Leicester
In this case, any split would presumably be between regular scheduled work and other work such as the various private contracts/solutions advertised on theor website. City Transport Group only operated the 700/701 as registered services and had no other tenders nor any commercial routes.

For what it's worth, the two routes in question seemed to need three vehicles for Monday to Friday daytime, two vehicles for Saturdays, and one vehicle for later evening service (roughly 7-10pm). I'm not sure whether that would generally correspond to nine drivers and would need nine devoted solely to that contract?
I would need a detailed study to be sure but given the day lengths intimated from your details and the pvrs suggested I would not be surprised to need 7 drivers per week as a minimum so allowing for holidays/cover then 9 drivers dedicated to the contract is believable.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,828
Location
Back office
For what it's worth, the two routes in question seemed to need three vehicles for Monday to Friday daytime, two vehicles for Saturdays, and one vehicle for later evening service (roughly 7-10pm). I'm not sure whether that would generally correspond to nine drivers and would need nine devoted solely to that contract?

Nine drivers sounds about right to me!

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

There’s a finite supply of newer vehicles paid for by other contracts that are spare to do rail replacement, so fully depreciated buses do end up making the numbers up in some areas.
 
Last edited:

richard13

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2019
Messages
282
TUPE requires a formal process, which I don't know. However the staff concerned have to be consulted. The group transferring has to be agreed. The new employer has to see their current contracts presumably before they accept the work contract on offer. The 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. This takes time. You cannot just turn up at the depot without an appointment.

It doesn't sound as if this happened. City cannot just say they will be TUPEd, they have to do it and the drivers receive formal welcome from Go North East.

Go North East has only accepted an emergency short term contract. The long term contract has to be tendered in the normal way and Go North East may not win that. TUPEing those drivers again from Go North East to another provider would be more difficulty unless Go NE set up special arrangements for staffing the 700/701 during the emergency contract.

Even if TUPE was valid, it still has to be implemented up front in a formal, legal manner, which appears not to have happened.

It would be nice to hear the outcome.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,553
TUPE requires a formal process, which I don't know. However the staff concerned have to be consulted. The group transferring has to be agreed. The new employer has to see their current contracts presumably before they accept the work contract on offer. The 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. This takes time. You cannot just turn up at the depot without an appointment.

It doesn't sound as if this happened. City cannot just say they will be TUPEd, they have to do it and the drivers receive formal welcome from Go North East.

Go North East has only accepted an emergency short term contract. The long term contract has to be tendered in the normal way and Go North East may not win that. TUPEing those drivers again from Go North East to another provider would be more difficulty unless Go NE set up special arrangements for staffing the 700/701 during the emergency contract.

Even if TUPE was valid, it still has to be implemented up front in a formal, legal manner, which appears not to have happened.

It would be nice to hear the outcome.
Erm, part of the point of TUPE is that the individual transfers employment. The paperwork supports that process, rather than being a blocker to it. So the interview and induction may be necessary, but they don't affect the entitlement of the employees to the transfer
 

Top