It was hoped that the new TUPE rules introduced earlier this year would make it easier for employers to change terms and conditions after a TUPE transfer. While it remains the case that any variation to contracts is void is the only or principal reason is the transfer itself, the revised TUPE regulations say that an employer and employee can agree a variation if it is made primarily for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason connected to the transfer and involving changes in the workforce – the test already used to establish whether dismissals connected to transfers are unfair. Does this make it easier for employers to harmonise terms and conditions following a TUPE transfer? The case of London Metropolitan University v Sackur, decided on the old TUPE regulations, but on the ETO wording above, to indicates that it will not. Two years after the merger of two universities, the new university wanted to harmonise terms and conditions so that all staff were on one contract. The affected staff refused to agree to the new terms so they were given notice under their old contracts and told they would be moved onto the new contract. They successfully brought dismissal claims in a tribunal. On appeal to the EAT the issue was whether the dismissals could be justified for an ETO reason. The EAT held that, for an ETO reason to apply, there must be a reduction in the number of staff or a change in their job functions. If the employer wants only to change the terms and conditions on which existing staff work, this will not qualify as an ETO reason. Post-TUPE harmonisation does not tend to involve a change in workforce numbers and therefore the new TUPE rules do not appear to help employers wanting to harmonise terms and conditions.