‘Whether a group of workers consists of an “organised grouping” which will automatically transfer to a new service provider when the work that they do is taken over by that provider will depend on their activities “immediately before” the transfer, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Nicholas Siddall analyses the recent decision of Simler J(P) in Arch Initiatives v GMW Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust & Others [2016] UKEAT/0267/15/RN and seeks to analyse the wider importance of the decision.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th April 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The job of a telecoms engineer on long-term sick leave with little prospect of returning to work did not transfer to a new employer as he was not “assigned” to the team when the team he worked as a part of was transferred to another service provider, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Earlier this year, I suggested that the law on when an asset acquisition might amount to a merger was somewhat opaque. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eurotunnel II [2015] EWCA Civ 487 has brought some additional clarity, although the messy procedural history of that case has caused its own problems.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 1st September 2015
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘It has long been accepted that the issue of whether an employee is “assigned” to an undertaking or part of an undertaking (and thus is subject to a relevant transfer for the purposes of the TUPE Regulations 2006) is a difficult and multifactorial question the outcome of which can often be difficult to predict.’
Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
University and College Union v University of Stirling [2015] UKSC 26; [2015] WLR (D) 188
‘An employee was dismissed as redundant for the purposes of an employer’s duty to consult about proposed collective redundancies if the reason for his dismissal was not something to do with him—such as something he was or something he had done—but was a reason relating to the employer, such as his need to effect business change in some respect.’
WLR Daily, 29th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It is well known that where the management or ownership of property passes from one company to another, the employment of staff engaged in property management or maintenance may transfer with it under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). However, it is not unusual for several different managed service contracts simultaneously to transfer from one contractor to another or for a number of sub-contracted maintenance contracts to be taken in-house by a property management company. A recent case has considered how TUPE applies in these circumstances involving multiple contracts.’
Tanfield Chambers, 27th April 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A former member of staff at a school in Merseyside was not entitled to compensation when he was dismissed from his role, as his full-time work as the elected mayor of Liverpool was incompatible with him continuing as an employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Anderson v Chesterfield High School UKEAT/0206/14/MC, Mr Anderson is currently the elected Mayor of Liverpool. This is an executive post and regarded as full-time. The position carries with it an annual allowance of almost £80,000. He had previously held positions as Councillor of Liverpool City Council, the Leader of the opposition on the Council and ultimately at the time of his election as Mayor, Leader of the Council, which was in effect a full-time post with an annual allowance of approximately £50,000.’
Education Law Blog, 16th April 2015
Source: www.education11kbw.com
‘Ian Smith reports on basic & immutable problems of employment law that require complex answers.’
New Law Journal, 17th February 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘A single employee responsible for the management of a company’s property portfolio in the Netherlands was an “organised grouping of employees”, covered by UK employment law protections when the service she provided was outsourced to another company.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th February 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) have provided a wide range of case law since they came into force. Decisions have often been focused on issues such as what constitutes a relevant transfer or the effect ofinsolvency on a transfer. However, there has been surprisingly little case law which deals with the Regulation 13 TUPE duty to inform and consult and the Regulation 15 TUPE claim to a tribunal for a failure to inform and consult.’
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 16th October 2014
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The point at which the new employer becomes responsible for the workers who have been transferred under TUPE rules is a question of fact, not the wishes or intentions of the parties, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A change in the working location of somebody who has changed employer through TUPE will only be grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if that change is “substantial” and causes “material detriment” to the worker.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Employees who were required to work in a different location after their work was outsourced were not exempted from legal protections aimed at such workers under pre-2014 rules, the UK’s employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Hazel and Huggins v Manchester College [2014] EWCA Civ 72 the Court of Appeal has dismissed the College’s appeal against a majority Employment Tribunal decision that the dismissals of two lecturers at HMP Elmley in Kent, Mrs Hazel and Mrs Huggins (“H&H”) were not for an “economic technical or organisational” (ETO) reason that entailed a change in the workforce, but were because they refused to agree to new, reduced terms, and this was connected to a TUPE transfer, making their dismissals automatically unfair.’
Education Law Blog, 7th February 2014
Source: www.education11kbw.com
United States of America v Nolan [2014] EWCA Civ 71; [2014] WLR (D) 46
‘Employers who were public administrative bodies or sovereign states were not exempt from the obligation to consult employees’ representatives about proposed collective redundancies imposed by section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as substituted.’
WLR Daily, 4th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘As predicted in our autumn newsletter, the Government has now published its proposed amendments to TUPE.’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th December 2013
Source: www.no5.com
‘Harini Iyengar considers the Court of Appeal’s (“CA”) latest analysis of the Economic Technical or Organisational Reason Exception (“ETO”) under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) and the tension between the employment regime and the insolvency regime.’
Employment Law Blog, 27th November 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024