A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Mach Recruitment Ltd v Mrs Maria Oliveira shows how employment tribunals may apply the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) to agency workers.
Background
Mrs Oliveira was an agency worker employed by G-Staff Ltd under a contract of employment. She was supplied by G-Staff to work as an Operative for Butcher’s Pet Care Ltd (Butcher’s).
On 18 July 2018, Mrs Oliveira became employed by Mach Recruitment Ltd (Mach). Later in 2018, Mach won the contract from G-Staff and began supplying temporary workers to Butcher’s. The question arose as to whether the change amounted to a ‘service provision change’ for the purposes of TUPE.
TUPE requires that, for a service provision change to apply, there must be an ‘organised group of employees’ whose main purpose is to carry out work for a specific client. This grouping must be deliberately organised by the employer.
The Decision
In the appeal, Mach argued that the grouping of agency workers was not deliberately organised. They claimed that the employees ended up working for Butcher’s due to shift patterns and practical arrangements, not because of any formal planning.
However, the EAT disagreed. It was found that Mrs Oliveira consistently worked with the same group of people, and this was enough to show that there was a specific group organised to meet Butcher’s business needs.
It is important to note that this was a case where there was very little evidence available. There was no real evidence of whether or how G-Staff had decided which agency workers would be supplied to Butcher’s, so Mrs Oliveira’s evidence that she consistently worked with the same group was one of only a few pieces of evidence the judge had to go off.
Takeaways
This case highlights the importance of how agency workers are grouped and assigned to clients. Even if there’s no formal decision to create a team, consistent working patterns and client-focused assignments can potentially be enough to trigger TUPE protections.
Overall, this case serves as an important reference point for interpreting TUPE in service provision contexts, specifically those involving agency workers, and underscores the need for clarity and properly documented processes when contracts change hands.
First published on 26/08/2025 on FCSA’s main website https://fcsa.org.uk
