Practical guidance on dismissals in the context of a TUPE transfer, including who has liability for dismissals; economic, technical and organisational reasons for dismissal; and information and consultation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that allegations about accounting malpractices that affected the bonuses and commission of 100 senior managers were made in the reasonable belief that they were in the public interest.
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.
The law on the right to request flexible working, including the meaning of "flexible working", eligibility, and rejection of an application for flexible working.
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 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.
The Court of Appeal has agreed that a transferee did not have an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) defence over the dismissal of two claimants as a result of harmonisation following a post-TUPE transfer redundancy process.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with an employment tribunal that emails sent by the claimant taken together were capable of amounting to qualifying disclosures, even though the emails were sent to different individuals in different departments.
In this case, a charity fairly dismissed two whistleblowing employees for the manner in which they had raised their concerns.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to automatically unfair dismissals.