Shiva Shadi, Partner and Head of Employment at Davis Blank Furniss

In the case of Colino Siguenza –v- Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and Others the CJEU considered whether a five-month suspension in an undertaking’s activities impeded a TUPE Transfer.

A music teacher, together with all his colleagues, was dismissed on 27th March 2013 and on 1st April 2013, two months before the end of the academic year the employer/contractor ceased its activities.

A tendering process followed and in August 2013 the local authority assigned the management of the school to a new contractor which started activities in September 2013.  However, none of the original staff were re-employed.

On the basis that three months of the five months suspension of activities had included school holidays, the CJEU concluded that the suspension of activities could not preclude the possibility of a TUPE transfer.

This illustrates that it’s not just looking at the specific period of cessation, but actually what has taken place during that period of time when considering the TUPE Regulations.

Share this article

This entry was posted in , , . Bookmark the permalink.