Employment lawyer and part-time employment judge Laurie Anstis joins Jeya Thiruchelvam in going back to basics and explaining the TUPE Regulations at an accessible level.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal decision that a requirement for older employees to accept less generous terms and conditions of employment, as a condition of their employment continuing, could be justified.
In RR Donnelley Global Document Solutions Group Ltd v Besagni and others; NSL Ltd v Besagni and others EAT/0397/13 & EAT/0398/13, the EAT held that the dismissal of transferred employees who refused to move to a new work location did not entail "changes in the workforce" and could not therefore be relied on as an ETO reason.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that an employment tribunal's judgment was flawed when it held that an employee of a transferor was assigned to the organised group of employees that were reassigned to the transferee on a service provision change.
The employment tribunal held in this case that, on a transfer under the TUPE Regulations, the transferor was liable to pay compensation for failing to inform the transferee that it would inherit claims from its employees for unpaid salary.
David Malamatenios is partner, Linda Quinn, Colin Makin and Krishna Santra are senior associates, and Dominic Speedie is an associate at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer and Ed Gregory, Rosie Kight and Joanne Magill are associate solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a requirement to work in a different location following a TUPE transfer does not amount to a change in the workforce and is not, therefore, an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce within the meaning of reg.7(2) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246).
In Foreningen af Arbejdsledere i Danmark v Daddy's Dance Hall A/S (Daddy's Dance Hall)  IRLR 315 ECJ , the ECJ held that the provisions of the Acquired Rights Directive are mandatory and "therefore independent of the will of the parties" to the employment contract, although post-transfer variations may be agreed that are permitted by national law "in cases other than the transfer of an undertaking".
In The Manchester College v Hazel and another  IRLR 392 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employees were not dismissed for a potentially fair ETO reason when their contracts were terminated post transfer and replaced with new contracts on significantly less favourable terms. The fact that the "harmonisation" process was part of a wider restructure that involved making other employees redundant at around the same time was irrelevant. What mattered was the immediate and operative reason for dismissing the particular employees in question, who were not themselves at risk of redundancy.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to TUPE.