TUPE transfer: roaming employees assigned to business unit that transferred
Three of seven employees found to have transferred under TUPE when part of their employer's business was sold out of administration. The tribunal examined assignment of roaming, multi-site workers.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe
- #assignment
- #redundancy
- #roaming-employee
- #multi-site-role
- #business-development
- #rapid-repair-centre
Key facts
- The third respondent entered administration on 3 September 2020.
- On 4 September 2020, part of the third respondent's business was transferred to the first respondent.
- The claimants were all employed by the third respondent and were not initially accepted as having transferred.
- The tribunal found that Mrs Clarke, Mr Johnston, and Ms MacLean were assigned to the economic entity that transferred.
- The tribunal found that Mr Morais, Mr Isaac, Mr Couzens, and Mr Gordon were not assigned to the economic entity that transferred.
- The claims of all claimants against the second respondent were dismissed by consent.
Timeline
-
Administration of third respondent
The third respondent (Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd) entered administration.
-
Transfer of undertaking
Part of the third respondent's business was transferred to the first respondent (FMG Repair Services Ltd). Employees who did not transfer were made redundant.
-
Claimants not transferred
All seven claimants were not accepted as having transferred and were made redundant by the administrators.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was conducted in these joined cases.
-
Issues identified
Employment Judge Dunlop identified the issues to be determined at the preliminary hearing.
-
Substantive hearing begins
The preliminary hearing to determine TUPE assignment commenced before Employment Judge Phil Allen.
-
Substantive hearing concludes
The hearing concluded after nine days of evidence and submissions.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal issued its judgment finding that Mrs Clarke, Mr Johnston, and Ms MacLean transferred under TUPE, while the other four claimants did not.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether each of seven employees was assigned to the part of the business that transferred from the old employer to the new employer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE).
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that three of the seven claimants were assigned to the economic entity that transferred to FMG Repair Services Ltd, meaning their employment transferred automatically. The other four claimants were not assigned to that entity and were therefore made redundant by the administrators.
The key factors considered were:
- The nature of each employee's role and whether they worked primarily for the transferring part of the business.
- For roaming employees who worked across multiple sites, the tribunal looked at their reporting lines, the proportion of time spent at different sites, and the source of their instructions.
- The tribunal found that the three successful claimants had a sufficient connection to the transferring entity, while the others did not.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing was limited to the preliminary issue of TUPE assignment.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work across multiple sites or for different parts of a business, keep records of your primary duties and reporting lines to help establish which entity you are assigned to.
- TUPE assignment is not determined by a single factor – tribunals consider a range of factors including where you work, who manages you, and the nature of your role.
- Being a 'roaming' or multi-site employee does not automatically mean you are not assigned to a particular business unit; it depends on the degree of connection.
- If your employer enters administration and part of the business is sold, check whether your role is connected to the sold part – you may transfer automatically.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the complexity of TUPE transfers when employees work across multiple sites or have a 'roaming' role. Seven employees of Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd, which entered administration in September 2020, found themselves in limbo when part of the business was sold to FMG Repair Services Ltd. The administrators treated all seven as redundant, but three argued they should have transferred automatically.
The tribunal had to determine the 'assignment' of each employee to the economic entity that was sold. For the three successful claimants – a business development manager and two others – the evidence showed they were sufficiently connected to the transferring part of the business. For the other four, the connection was too weak.
What the losing side could have done differently
The administrators and the new employer could have avoided this dispute by conducting a proper analysis of each employee's role before deciding who transferred. For roaming employees, this means looking at factors like where they spent most of their time, who gave them instructions, and which part of the business their work primarily benefited. A more thorough assessment might have led to a different outcome for some claimants, or at least avoided the need for a nine-day tribunal hearing.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that TUPE assignment is not always straightforward, especially for employees who do not work at a single site. The tribunal's detailed analysis of each claimant's circumstances shows that there is no 'one size fits all' answer. Employees in similar situations should gather evidence about their day-to-day work, reporting lines, and the nature of their role to support their claim that they transferred. Employers, meanwhile, should take care to assess each employee individually rather than making blanket decisions.
Similar cases
Bathstore store-by-store sale: no TUPE transfer for head office staff
Five former Bathstore employees failed to prove their contracts transferred to Homebase after it bought 44 stores. The tribunal ruled each store was a separate economic entity and none of the claimants were assigned to a transferred store.
TUPE transfer during liquidation: protective award and unfair dismissal claims fail, but consultation breach succeeds
Former telemarketing employees lose protective award and unfair dismissal claims after a TUPE transfer from a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation, but win compensation for failure to consult.
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.
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.