Post office transfer: no TUPE protection because staff were not an organised grouping
A tribunal dismissed a post office worker's claim that her job should have transferred under TUPE, ruling that she and her son were not an 'organised grouping' whose principal purpose was the post office work.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #transfer-of-undertakings
- #service-provision-change
- #organised-grouping
- #principal-purpose
- #post-office
- #retail-shop
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the first respondent until her resignation on 14 May 2021.
- The first respondent operated a shop and a Post Office branch at the same premises.
- The business was sold to the second respondent with transfer due in May 2021.
- The parties agreed that activities ceased by the first respondent and were carried out by the second respondent from 11 May 2021.
- The claimant and her son Kieran were the two employees working in the premises immediately before the transfer.
- The employer did not deliberately organise the claimant and her son as a team for the Post Office work.
Timeline
-
Audit and transfer of activities
An audit took place at the Post Office branch. After the audit, the activities carried out by the first respondent on behalf of the Post Office ceased and were instead carried out by the second respondent.
-
Claimant's resignation
The claimant resigned from her employment with the first respondent.
-
Agreed transfer date
The first respondent's position was that the transfer date had been agreed to be 15 May 2021.
-
Case Management Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing was held to consider the issues in dispute.
-
Substantive hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the issue of whether a service provision change had occurred.
-
Substantive hearing day 2
The tribunal concluded the hearing and gave an oral decision that there was no service provision change.
-
Judgment sent
The written judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Request for written reasons
The claimant's representative requested written reasons for the decision.
-
Written reasons issued
Employment Judge Macdonald issued written reasons for the decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a service provision change had occurred under TUPE when the post office contract moved from one company to another. The key question was whether there was an 'organised grouping of employees' whose principal purpose was carrying out the post office activities.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that no service provision change had occurred.
- The claimant worked in a shop that also housed a post office. When the business was sold, she argued her employment should have transferred to the new owner under TUPE.
- However, the tribunal found that the claimant and her son were not an 'organised grouping' whose principal purpose was the post office work. They were simply the two employees working in the shop, and the employer had not deliberately organised them as a team for the post office.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- TUPE protection only applies if there is an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose is the transferred activities – simply working on those activities is not enough.
- If you work in a small business where staff perform multiple roles, check whether the employer has deliberately assigned you as a team to the specific activity that is transferring.
- A union representative can help you understand whether TUPE applies, but the tribunal will look closely at how the employer organised the workforce, not just what work you did.
- If there is no organised grouping, your employment may not transfer even if the activities themselves are taken over by a new provider.
This case shows how the technical requirements of TUPE can defeat a claim even when the underlying facts seem straightforward. The claimant worked in a shop that also housed a post office. When the shop was sold, the post office activities moved to the new owner. She argued that her employment should have transferred automatically under TUPE.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal focused on a specific legal test: was there an 'organised grouping of employees' whose principal purpose was carrying out the post office work? The claimant and her son were the only two employees in the shop. They both worked on post office tasks, but the employer had not deliberately organised them as a team for that purpose. They were simply the shop's staff, and the post office was just one part of the business.
What the employer could have done differently
There is little the employer could have done to change the outcome – the lack of an organised grouping was a factual reality. However, if the employer had formally designated the claimant and her son as a dedicated post office team, the result might have been different. For employees in similar situations, it is worth checking how the employer has structured the workforce and whether there is any documentation showing a specific grouping for the activity.
Why this matters
This decision highlights a common trap in TUPE claims. Even if you spend most of your time on a particular activity, you may not be protected if the employer has not organised you as a group for that purpose. The tribunal's reasoning confirms that the 'organised grouping' requirement is a real hurdle, not a formality. Anyone considering a TUPE claim should seek advice early to assess whether this test can be met.
Similar cases
Four night drivers unfairly dismissed after employer wrongly assumed TUPE transfer
Four HGV night drivers with up to 12 years' service were unfairly dismissed when their employer assumed their jobs would transfer to a new contractor under TUPE, but the tribunal found no organised grouping existed.
Field engineers dismissed after employer wrongly claimed TUPE transfer: £114,504 awarded
Four field engineers were unfairly dismissed when their employer told them they had transferred to a new contractor under TUPE, but no transfer had occurred. The tribunal awarded over £114,000 in total.
Five workers unfairly dismissed after TUPE transfer missed them out
Five employees of Westfield Shovels Limited were unfairly dismissed when their jobs were lost to a service change. The tribunal found they should have been transferred to the new contractor, not made redundant.
TUPE transfer and automatic unfair dismissal: employee wins after asserting statutory rights
A former employee of Plau Bistro Limited was automatically unfairly dismissed after asserting a statutory right following a TUPE transfer. The tribunal awarded £2,396.23 for unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay.