Post-TUPE Dismissal Risk.
Caught before the tribunal claim.
Leah ingests transfer details, monitors subsequent dismissals against TUPE rules, classifies each one against ETO risk factors, and escalates exposure to employment counsel before a tribunal claim ever lands.
TUPE risk accumulates quietly. Tribunal claims surface it loudly.
Transfers happen without dismissal monitoring
TUPE transfers are executed by HR and corporate teams, then operational continuity takes over. Nobody runs a continuous check on whether subsequent dismissals trigger TUPE protections, so risk accumulates silently in the months after the transfer.
ETO reasoning is inconsistent across HR
Whether a dismissal is for an Economic, Technical, or Organisational reason is decided line by line, often by managers who have not been trained on TUPE specifics. The reasoning is captured in HR notes, not in a defensible legal framework.
Tribunal claims discovered after they land
The first signal that a dismissal carried TUPE risk is usually a tribunal claim form. By then, the dismissal is months old, the reasoning is hard to reconstruct, and the cost of defending or settling has already crystallized.
Cross-jurisdiction TUPE rules diverge
UK TUPE, the EU Acquired Rights Directive, and national implementations in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and beyond each apply different protected periods, ETO tests, and consultation thresholds. Multinational groups manage them inconsistently.
Collective consultation gaps
Where transfers affect 20 or more employees, collective information and consultation duties apply. Gaps in consultation evidence often surface only when a claim is brought, not when the underlying duty was missed.
Record-keeping fragmented
Transfer agreements live with corporate, employee data sits in HRIS, dismissal letters live in case files, consultation notes live in email. No single record connects the transfer to the dismissals that follow it.
Every transfer tracked, every employee scoped
Leah ingests transfer agreements, employee liability information, and HRIS records to build a continuously updated inventory of TUPE transfers. Each transferred employee is scoped with effective date, transferor, transferee, and the protected period that applies in their jurisdiction.
“We had transfers from three years back that nobody was actively tracking. Leah surfaced the protected populations on day one and gave us a single view across every jurisdiction.”
Head of Employment Law, Multinational Services Group
Five steps to continuous TUPE risk management
Leah integrates with the systems you already run. No rip and replace. Coverage from the next transfer onward, plus retrospective scope on transfers already in flight.
Connect
Leah integrates with HRIS, case management, ER tooling, and document repositories. Transfer agreements, employee records, dismissal letters, and consultation notes all flow into a single intelligence layer.
Track Transfers
Every TUPE transfer is inventoried with effective date, affected population, jurisdiction, and protected period. The watch list updates as new transfers complete and old ones age out.
Monitor Dismissals
Post-transfer dismissals, redundancies, and material variations to terms are detected in real time and matched to the transfer they relate to. Clusters and consultation gaps are surfaced automatically.
Classify Risk
Each event is classified against the ETO test, scored on TUPE risk factors, and benchmarked against comparable outcomes. Reasoning is consistent across business units and jurisdictions.
Escalate to Counsel
High-risk items are escalated to employment counsel with a complete evidentiary bundle. Every classification, decision, and override is logged in a defensible audit trail.
Got Questions? Get Answers.
Each transfer Leah tracks has an effective date and a jurisdiction. From those two facts, Leah applies the relevant protected period (the heightened-risk window after transfer in UK TUPE, the equivalent windows under national ARD implementations, sector-specific overlays where they apply). Any dismissal of a transferred employee inside that window is automatically tagged for elevated scrutiny, with the date math shown on the record.
No. Leah operates on top of the systems you already run. Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, Oracle HCM, case management tools, and document repositories continue to be the source of record. Leah reads from those systems, runs the TUPE monitoring layer, and writes back classifications, escalations, and audit entries. There is no rip and replace.
Each transfer is tagged with the applicable regime: UK TUPE, ARD national implementations in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and others, plus sector-specific rules where they apply. The ETO test, protected period, and consultation thresholds applied to a dismissal are the ones in force in that jurisdiction. The same classification framework runs across the group, with jurisdiction-correct rules underneath.
Where transfers affect 20 or more employees, collective information and consultation duties apply. Leah tracks the consultation timeline, the population covered, and the evidence captured at each stage. Gaps are surfaced as risk items in their own right, not just when a tribunal claim arrives. Counsel sees the gap and the supporting evidence in the same view.
Leah classifies the stated reason and surrounding evidence, with confidence scoring. High-confidence classifications proceed automatically. Lower-confidence classifications are flagged for counsel review before the dismissal is treated as defensible. Every classification is logged with its rationale, the source documents, and the model version used, so the reasoning can be audited and challenged.
Leah is deployed by multinational employers with strict data and privacy requirements. Employment data does not train Leah's underlying models. Customer data is encrypted in transit and at rest. SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and CCPA aligned, with data residency options for EU customers. Private instance deployment is available for groups with strict data isolation requirements.
