Employment Law Sectors

Facilities Management

Welcome to the web page dedicated to businesses in the Facilities Management sector, which concentrates on security, maintenance and cleaning organisations.

On this page you can find information about the law affecting businesses in this sector, read articles on relevant employment law and find out details of our workshops and seminars at which you will be able to watch presentations given by our team and meet other individuals working in the sector.

If you would like more details of the Facilities Management team or would like to attend an event please telephone David Gray-Jones, Team Leader on 020 7426 4909 or email david.gray-jones@thomasmansfield.com

We would be pleased to here from you if you think you have any information which is relevant to the law in this sector and you think would be useful to others working in this sector.

Top Concerns in the Facilities Management Sector

  • Pay issues, including the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay; 
  • Working time, including rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations and related health and safety matters;
  • Disciplinary and grievance issues;
  • Transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protections of Employment) Regulations 2006. 

Latest Employment Law News

Latest TUPE Case Law OCS Group UK Ltd v Jones and anor EAT

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’) provide for two different types of different, although not mutually exclusive transfers: a transfer of an economic entity which changes hands and retains its identity post transfer and a ‘service provision change’, which can occur when an outsourcing, insourcing (ie. taking work back in house) or re-tendering exercise takes place (Reg 3(1)(b).

‘Service provision change’ transfers are very common in the Facilities Management sector. The issue will arise if a service such as security guarding or cleaning is provided to a client or customer by one contractor and the contract is taken over by another contractor. In these circumstances it is very important for the all the parties involved to know what their rights and obligations under TUPE are.

The EAT has given guidance on what constitutes a ‘service provision change’ in OCS Group UK Ltd v Jones and anor. In this case OCS Ltd was contracted to provide a catering service at a car manufacturing plant. The contract provided for the provision of cooked food to the staff of the client. At the beginning of August 2007 the client agreed a new contract with another catering company and terminated the contract with OCS Group. Under the new contract the new contractor was not obliged to provide hot food but simply had to sell pre-prepared sandwiches and salads. Some of the employees of OCS Group claimed that their employment should have transferred to the new contractor as there was a ‘service provision change’ under Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the judgement of the Employment Tribunal that there had not been a service provision change and that the contracts of the employees of the old contractor had not transferred to the new contractor. The EAT held that the correct approach to interpreting Regulation 3 is that the Employment Tribunal should decide as a matter of fact whether the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor. In this case the Tribunal was entitled to find that there was a substantial difference between the old and new contracts and in coming to this conclusion should look closely at the actual activities being carried out under the contracts in question. On the facts of this case there was a sufficient difference between the provision of a cooked meal canteen service under the old contract and the provision of pre-prepared cold food under the new contract to prevent there being a service provision change under Reg 3 of TUPE.


Employment Tribunal’s judgement on rest breaks and compensatory rest under Regulation 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 – whether or not it is possible for objective reasons for a security guard at a single manned site to take compensatory rest during their shift. Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd.

Latest Articles

Read our article on the judgement of the EAT in Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd.

Events Calendar

Please contact David Gray-Jones for details of forthcoming events.

Meet the Team

The Facilities Management team is a group of solicitors within Thomas Mansfield LLP who have a particular interest in working for clients in the Facilities Management sector.

The team meets on a regular basis to discuss updates and issues arising in the Facilities Management sector and to share knowledge and information.

Team Members

David Gray-Jones (Team Leader)

David Gray-Jones is a solicitor-advocate with experience of advising employers in the private and public sector on the legal issues directly relevant to organisations in the Facilities Management sector. He appeared in the Employment Tribunal in the Case of Hunt v Storm and Another, the first reported case on the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether there is a “service provision change” under TUPE 2006. He also appeared in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd, an authority on the interpretation of the meaning of “rest breaks” and “compensatory rest” under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Jonathan Mansfield

Jonathan is one of the founding partners of ThomasMansfield LLP. He has extensive experience in the facilities management sector. He regularly advises an international security company on all aspects of employment law as it affects their business including TUPE, the Working Time Regulations, discrimination and disciplinary situations.