TUPE or not?

[Spuddy1234]

we have lost two seperate contracts to the same incoming provider, both contracts will tranfers on same day, i work 40% on one contrcat and 40% on the other, would TUPE be accumulative so i tranfer or is each contract viewed as seperate so i am then at risk of redundancy from my current employer? thank you

AFAIK it's each undertaking ie each contract is separate. Because it was conceivable that they could have gone to separate providers and therefore you would be be wholly or substantially assigned to either.
However presumably there's a consultation? And I think the point could reasonably be brought up during that process. It may be that the new supplier would actually be grateful to have people who can work across both?

Thanks, that was my worry as they will not want the extra costs and my current firm will just make us redundant which is not what any of us need. TUPE was better option.

Well it depends on the service and the company. If they've wo. 2 x Contracts they'll need to service those and therefore it's unlikely they'll have all the staff already sitting there waiting to do the work. So sometimes suppliers do want to tupe people over because it's helpful for them.
For example, our office building management contract was recently taken over by a new supplier and everyone just tupe'd across and got new uniforms and that was that. Literally zero change of personnel other than probably some management folks, that we never see !
Has a consultation been announced?

wish we could just go over like that, consultations planned for august, unions involved but are far from TUPE experts, issue being said is that as we were only 40% against each contract we were not declared during the tender stage, no one expected same company to win both tenders. will keep you posted, appreciate advice. thanks.

Doesn't matter what was declared at tender. Tupe is a matter of employment law not contract.
Sometimes there's indemnities in contracts about risk of tupe but ultimately it's still a matter of law. I'd encourage the union to get some employment lawyer advice especially if there's a bunch of you in that position. I'm really not sure on how it would apply but I'd bet there's some case law that helps

appreciate your advice. will keep you posted.

https://www.stevens-bolton.com/site/insights/articles/employees-can-be-transferred-to-multiple-new-employers

This would imply that you would be TUPE'd across, in this case of course it's the same employer not multiple, but you need employment lawyer to advise.

thank you for research, will read through. i did google but so many complex answers, this looks clear to read, appreciated :)

TUPE applicability doesn’t start, or even end, at what % of time you spend on a contract. There are 3 questions:

1. Is there a transfer of undertaking or a service provision change? Here you’ve got 2 classic service provision changes.
2. Is there an organised grouping of employees assigned to the work? This is what most people miss. If there’s no deliberate assignment of a group (which can be one person) to a particular contract then TUPE doesn’t apply. I have dealt with situations that have turned on this point.
3. Which individuals are assigned to that group? This is not purely a matter of % time spent, but also includes other factors which demonstrate how the work is organised. Again, happenstance can prevent a TUPE transfer even if someone works 100% of their time on a contract, if the organisation behind that cannot be clearly evidenced.

That said, McTear was the case that came to mind for me. The circumstances were different in that there was one contract being split into two at the point of transfer. However, I would reference this as relevant if I were looking to argue in favour of TUPE in your case.