Key Takeaways from Mansfield Care Ltd v Newman: TUPE, Redundancy, and Worker Rights Explained

Mansfield Care Ltd v Newman and Others

Background 

In the case of Mansfield Care Ltd v Newman and ors and Rollandene Ltd v Newman and ors [2024] EAT 128, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) addressed crucial issues surrounding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). The case primarily involved the transfer of care services and staff from Rollandene Ltd to Mansfield Care Ltd, which was disputed under the TUPE regulations and collective redundancy consultation obligations under TULRCA. 

Facts 

Rollandene Ltd operated a care home, Adamwood, which decided to close in June 2021. Arrangements were made for the transfer of residents and staff to Mansfield Care Ltd. At the time of closure, 29 staff members were employed at Adamwood, including 17 full-time or part-time employees and 12 bank staff. Residents were moved to two homes operated by Mansfield Care Ltd, and staff were informed that they would be offered positions at these new locations. 

Legal Issues 

The legal questions before the Tribunal were: 

1. Whether the transfer of residents and staff constituted a relevant transfer under TUPE. 
2. Whether there was a failure to consult on proposed redundancies as required by section 188 TULRCA. 
3. The employment status of the staff, particularly the bank staff. 

Tribunal Findings 

Relevant Transfer under TUPE: 

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that there was both a business transfer and a service provision change (SPC) under TUPE. The provision of residential care services, including the transfer of residents and staff, constituted an economic entity that retained its identity. 

• Despite the fact that staff were required to apply and undergo checks before being employed by Mansfield Care, the ET determined that the intention and understanding were for the staff to transfer on the same terms and conditions, indicating a relevant transfer under TUPE. 

1. Consultation on Redundancies: 

• The ET concluded that there was a failure to consult with staff regarding redundancies, breaching section 188 TULRCA. This decision was based on the understanding that the closure of Adamwood and the subsequent transfer involved more than 20 employees, necessitating a consultation process. 

2. Employment Status: 

• The ET upheld that the bank staff, despite their flexible work arrangement, were employees under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The ET noted that these staff had a contract of service with the employer, meeting the criteria of mutual obligation. 

Appeal and EAT Decision 

Both respondents, Rollandene Ltd and Mansfield Care Ltd, appealed the ET’s decision. The EAT allowed parts of the appeal: 

1. TUPE Transfer: 

• The EAT found that the ET had erred in its reasoning regarding the identification of an economic entity and the application of TUPE. The matter was remitted to the same ET for reconsideration, focusing solely on whether there was a relevant transfer under regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE. 

2. TULRCA Consultation: 

• The EAT upheld the appeal on the grounds that the ET had insufficient evidence to conclude a failure to consult on redundancies. The findings under section 188 TULRCA were set aside. 

3. Employment Status: 

• The EAT upheld the ET’s decision regarding the employment status of the bank staff, affirming that they were employees under the Employment Rights Act. 

Implications 

This case underscores the complexities involved in TUPE transfers and the obligations under TULRCA. It highlights the need for employers to carefully assess the nature of staff transfers and ensure compliance with consultation requirements during redundancies. The case also reinforces the criteria for determining employment status, particularly for flexible or bank staff. 

For trade union representatives, this case emphasises the importance of advocating for proper consultation processes and protecting the rights of all employees, including those with non-standard work arrangements.