over the work of its predecessor, it must take on the staff (from the old company) on their existing terms and conditions. This can create the situation where "transferring" employee may be on enhanced terms compared with an employee already employed by the new company. Harmonisation of the terms and conditions between the two groups of employees is generally not possible as the "reason" for it would be the TUPE transfer which (except in limited circumstances) is specifically prohibited. This could result in a situation where a transferring employee (whose old contract gave them an enhanced holiday entitlement) may be working alongside an existing employee of the new company (working under a contract of employment whose terms were set by the "new" company) who has less generous holiday rights. TUPE Plus An extended model of TUPE which aims to address "widely recognised" limitations to the TUPE framework, known as "TUPE Plus" or "TUPE+", has been recommended by Trade Unions and employment advisors. TUPE Plus encompasses a number of enhancements to TUPE which could be included in service contracts, including a guarantee that TUPE would last for the whole length of a contract, because the regulations themselves do not specify a time period. Reform In April 2011, the UK government proposed a number of reforms to TUPE. These were enacted in the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/16, also known as CRATUPEAR, which came into force on 31 January 2014. Cases Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), EAT/1243/99 RCO Support Services v Unison [2002], EWCA Civ 464 Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV (1986) C-24/85, [1986] 2 CMLR 296 Süzen v Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice (1997) C-13/95 [1997] 1 CMLR 768; [1997] ICR 662 Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen (2001) C-172/99, [2001] IRLR 171 Tapere v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust University of Oxford v Humphreys [2000] ICR 405, [2000] IRLR 183 Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG (2006) C-499/04 Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Hamshaw (19 July 2011) Bean J, tribunal was right to find there was no transfer under TUPER 2006 r 3 where the learning-disabled residents of an NHS care home were rehoused in individual homes following the closure of the home and the care workers formally employed by the NHS trust were employed by different care