In MITIE Managed Services Ltd v French and others, the EAT holds that a contractual right to participate in an employer's profit-sharing scheme may, following a TUPE transfer, become a right to participate in a scheme of "substantial equivalence" only, if the right to continue participating in the original scheme is absurd, impossible or unjust.
In RCO Support Services and another v Unison and others, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision of an employment tribunal that there were relevant transfers of undertakings within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations in the form of labour-intensive cleaning and catering support activities, respectively, despite the fact that almost none of the workforce was taken on by the transferee.
In Curr v Marks & Spencer plc, the EAT holds that an employee who took a four-year break from work under her employer's "child-break scheme", after which she was re-engaged, was to be regarded as continuing in employment "by arrangement" during that period when no contract of employment subsisted.