Chemical plant workers transferred to Airbus under TUPE when contract brought in-house
Three chemical effluent plant workers were automatically transferred to Airbus under TUPE when the maintenance contract expired and Airbus took the work in-house. The tribunal declared a service provision change had occurred.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe
- #service-provision-change
- #fundamentally-same-activities
- #in-house-transfer
- #chemical-treatment-plant
Key facts
- The claimants were employed by Suez Industrial Water Ltd to operate and maintain a chemical effluent treatment plant at Airbus's West Bromwich site.
- When the maintenance contract expired, Airbus took the service in-house and refused to employ the claimants.
- The claimants turned up for work on 31 October 2020 but were not allowed entry.
- The tribunal found that the activities carried out by the claimants were fundamentally the same as those carried out by Airbus after the transfer.
- The claimants' employment automatically transferred to Airbus under TUPE on 31 October 2020.
Timeline
-
Expiry of maintenance contract
The contract between Suez and Airbus for operation and maintenance of the chemical effluent treatment plant expired.
-
Claimants barred from work
The claimants attended work but were refused entry by Airbus, who had taken the service in-house.
-
Claims presented
The claimants brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, redundancy payment, and other payments against both respondents.
-
First judgment (default)
Employment Judge T Brown entered judgment by default against Airbus for unfair and wrongful dismissal, declaring a TUPE transfer.
-
Airbus applied for reconsideration
Airbus applied to set aside the default judgment.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge T Brown set aside the default judgment by consent.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 1)
Employment Judge Emery heard evidence and argument on whether a TUPE transfer occurred.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 2)
The hearing concluded with oral closing arguments.
-
Judgment on TUPE transfer
Employment Judge Emery declared that a service provision change transferred the claimants' employment to Airbus on 31 October 2020, and dismissed Suez from the proceedings.
The legal issue
Whether the activities carried out by the claimants before the contract expiry were fundamentally the same as those carried out by Airbus after taking the service in-house, so that a TUPE service provision change occurred.
The outcome
The tribunal declared that a relevant service provision change transferred the claimants' employment from Suez Industrial Water Limited to Airbus Operations Limited on 31 October 2020. The first respondent (Suez) was dismissed from the proceedings.
The key reason was that the activities of operating and maintaining the chemical effluent treatment plant were fundamentally the same before and after the transfer. Airbus had argued that the way it ran the operation changed, but the tribunal rejected this.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the judgment only dealt with the preliminary issue of whether a TUPE transfer occurred. The claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and redundancy payment remain to be determined.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are employed on a contract that is taken in-house by the client, check whether TUPE applies — the activities must be fundamentally the same before and after the transfer.
- Employers cannot avoid TUPE by claiming the way they run the service is different if the core activities remain the same.
- If you are refused entry to work after a transfer, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal against the new employer.
- A default judgment can be set aside by consent, so respondents should act promptly if they wish to contest the claim.
What this case shows
Three workers who operated and maintained a chemical effluent treatment plant at Airbus's West Bromwich site were employed by Suez Industrial Water Limited under a maintenance contract. When the contract expired, Airbus decided to take the service in-house and refused to employ the workers. The workers turned up for work on 31 October 2020 but were not allowed entry.
The tribunal had to decide whether a TUPE service provision change occurred, meaning the workers' employment automatically transferred to Airbus. Airbus argued that the way it ran the operation fundamentally changed, but the tribunal found that the activities of operating and maintaining the plant were fundamentally the same before and after the transfer.
What could have been done differently
Airbus could have recognised that TUPE applied and either employed the workers or followed a fair redundancy process. Instead, it simply barred them from work, leaving them without employment and forcing them to bring claims. Suez, the original employer, was dismissed from the proceedings because the transfer meant the workers were no longer its employees.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that TUPE service provision changes can apply when a client brings outsourced work in-house, even if the new employer runs things differently. The key test is whether the activities are fundamentally the same. Workers in similar situations should seek legal advice promptly, as they may have claims for unfair dismissal and other payments against the new employer.
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.
Cleaner unfairly dismissed after cleaning contract changed hands: TUPE transfer
A cleaner with four years' service was found to be automatically unfairly dismissed when the new cleaning contractor refused to take him on. The tribunal awarded £1,372.
Care workers dismissed after TUPE transfer: claims against new provider mostly out of time
Four care workers who lost their jobs when a quadriplegic man's care moved to a new provider won statutory redundancy pay, but their unfair dismissal and notice claims failed because they were brought too late.
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.