| |||
| Tupe Factsheet | Home | ||
|
ET is allowed flexibility in deciding whether the burden of proof has shifted
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. A Beck [2010] UKEAT 0141_10_2408 |
02/09/10 | ||
|
TUPE: Failure to consult doesn't give an individual the right to claim unfair dismissal
Nationwide Building Society v. Benn & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0273_09_2707 |
30/07/10 | ||
|
Employees must be informed of changes to collective agreement terms
Worrall v Wilmott Dixon Partnership [2010] UKEAT/0521/09/DM |
14/07/10 | ||
|
Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer
Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT 0538_08_2910 |
08/12/09 | ||
|
Employers can not hide behind 'substantial equivalence' arguments to justify post TUPE contract changes
TAPERE v SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST - [2009] UKEAT 0410_08_1908 |
24/08/09 | ||
|
Claims for Equal Pay up to the date of a transfer must be brought within 6 months of the transfer Post transfer claims have 6 years (or 6 months after termination)
Gutridge v Sodexo - [2009] EWCA Civ 729 |
16/07/09 | ||
|
Major EAT boost to TUPE service provision change protections – A “common sense and pragmatic approach is required” Metropolitan Resources v Cambridge EAT 2009 | 30/06/09 | ||
|
Collective agreements negotiated after a transfer still bind the transferee Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Ltd EAT 2009 | 01/02/09 | ||
|
Tupe Applies Outside The UK Hollis Metal Industries v GMB | 04/01/08 | ||
|
Informed Consent On The Part Of The Employee Is Needed For A Valid Transfer NEW ISG LIMITED v VERNON
A group of workers only found out who they would be working for after the tranfer
had taken place. They objected to their transfer in that informed consent was needed for a TUPE transfer to take place. If no transfer had taken place, the new employer (New ISG) could not enforce the restrictive covenants in the contract. The company could thus not prohibit the use of a wealth of confidential information belonging to ISG that the employees had appropriated. The EAT agreed with the workers that as they had not known who would be the transferee before the sale no transfer had taken place for them and their resignations were valid. Other factors such as not having been consulted about the transfer Were taken into account by the judge.
| 8/12/2007 | ||
If a worker has rights conferred upon him by mandatory provisions of the Council Directive 2001/23/EC he cannot waive them. - REGENT SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED v POWER Mr Power's right to retire at 60 could not could not therefore be waived. This was transferred and preserved by TUPE and was still available to him when he reached 60. The transcript of the decision in this case, REGENT SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED v POWER can be found: Here | 21/11/2007 | ||
AMANDA JACKSON v COMPUTERSHARE INVESTOR SERVICES PLC - CA [2007] EWCA Civ 1065 The Court of Appeal (CA) has upheld an Employment Appeals tribunal decision in turning down a worker's wish to be entitled to enhanced severance pay in the same manner as other workers in the transferee company. The decision held that when transferring to a new business, continuity and existing terms and conditions remain valid. - AMANDA JACKSON v COMPUTERSHARE INVESTOR SERVICES PLC In 2004 Mrs Jackson transferred to CIS under TUPE 1981 and in 2005 she became redundant. Mrs Jackson wished to benefit from a 2002 enhanced severance scheme but the scheme had been closed before the transfer. Mrs Jackson argued that as TUPE grants continuity of employment and she was employed by the transferor company in 1999, she was therefore eligible for the enhanced severance pay when she became redundant. The CA decided that whilst TUPE conferred continuity on a statutory basis, contractual rights that she was not party to before the transfer should remain separate from the provisions of TUPE 1981 (this will also apply to TUPE 2006). Workers being transferred will not benefit from rights that are not in effect contractually at the time of transfer. Closed schemes will not be available to them (although it is possible that a claim under equal pay legislation could be argued).
The transcript of the decision in this case can be found: Here | 30/10/2007 | ||
|
Decison In EAT Could Adversely Affect Future ET Claims | 11/12/06 | ||
|
© Workrep 2009 All rights reserved Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep are intended for general information purposes only. No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of such information are made. | |||