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


    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME


The GMB claimed that the employer breached reg. 13(2) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 ("TUPE"). The EAT upheld the tribunal's award of 3 weeks wages to each worker affected.
  • The TUPE obligation to inform always applies.
  • Providing information to employees is meant to enable informed consultation whether or not it is obligatory.
  • In deciding the size of the protective award the Susie Radin principles relating to redundancy apply here - the amount of the protective award will be set at a level where justice will be done.
  • Employers who breach their Regulation 13 obligations will not automatically need to compensate each employee with 13 weeks' pay. In this case only 3 weeks pay was awarded.

For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911
A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111
In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202
In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202
It is possible to claim unfair dismissal abroad even if the workplace is registered outside the UK - Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133
Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046
Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108
Redundancies - ECJ rules that consultations do not need to begin until the parent company decides which subsidiary will be affected - Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy - ECJ [2009] Case C-44/08
ECJ rules holiday entitlement must not be lost through illness - Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA - ECJ [2009] C-277/08
Costs follow lies (breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) - Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807
Pre-contractual negotiations can not be used as evidence for the meaning of a contract - Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] UKHL 38

The transcript of this case follows:-   Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009]  (usually found at the Bailli or Employment Appeals websites)

Some recent employment cases:-
The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour
Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288

Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website   2009 Workrep