TUPE case law update

This report relates to 13 case(s)

• expand disabled

  Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and another v Wilcox and others [2006] IRLR 258 EAT (0 other reports)
• expand disabled

  Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and another v Wilcox and others [2007] IRLR 63 CA (0 other reports)
• expand

  Baxter and others v Marks & Spencer and others [2005] All ER (D) 26 (Oct) EAT (1 other report)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 March 2006

    Sophy Robinson and Karen Fletcher of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.

• expand

  Celtec Ltd v Astley and others [2005] IRLR 647 ECJ (2 other reports)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Transfers occur on objectively identified specific dates

    Date:

    15 July 2005

    In Celtec Ltd v Astley and others, the ECJ holds that Article 3(1) of the Business Transfers Directive (77/187/EC) must be interpreted as meaning that the "date of a transfer" is the date on which the employer's responsibility for carrying on the business of the unit transferred moves from the transferor to the transferee. That date is a particular point in time, which cannot be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or transferee.

  • Case round-up: TUPE transfer

    Date:

    14 June 2005

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering the point in time at which a TUPE transfer takes place.

• expand

  Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman [1985] IRLR 305 CA (1 other report)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Changes in the workforce

    Date:

    4 June 1985

    In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

• expand

  G4S Justice Services v Anstey and others [2006] IRLR 588 EAT (2 other reports)

  • Transfer of undertaking: TUPE and the 'vanishing dismissal'

    Date:

    8 September 2006

    In G4S Justice Services (UK) Ltd v Anstey and others [2006] IRLR 588 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that employees dismissed for gross misconduct prior to a TUPE transfer, but whose appeals were subsequently upheld, were employed "immediately before" the transfer, with the result that their employment transferred.

  • Case round-up: TUPE

    Date:

    30 May 2006

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering TUPE.

• expand

  Lightways (Contractors) Ltd v Associated Holdings Ltd [2000] IRLR 247 CS (1 other report)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Declared intention of parties was relevant to transfer question

    Date:

    15 May 2000

    An employment tribunal had not erred in law in taking into account the fact that the transferee had tendered and won a contract on the basis that the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations applied when deciding whether or not a relevant transfer had taken place, holds the Inner House of the Court of Session in Lightways (Contractors) Ltd v Associated Holdings Ltd.

• expand

  London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06 (1 other report)

  • Transfer of undertakings: 'ETO' defence does not apply to harmonisation involving no workforce changes

    Date:

    29 December 2006

    In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.

• expand

  Mackie v Aberdeen City Council [2006] CSIH 36 (1 other report)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Court of Session confirms correct approach to identifying a 'TUPE transfer'

    Date:

    1 December 2006

    In Mackie v Aberdeen City Council [2006] CSIH 36, the Court of Session holds that there was no TUPE transfer when a private-sector employee working on a project for a local authority was subsequently offered a job in-house, despite a letter from the local authority indicating that a transfer had taken place.

• expand disabled

  Nicholas v Tina Grant t/a Sandancers Cafe EAT/0198/06 (0 other reports)
• expand

  Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam [2006] IRLR 923 EAT (1 other report)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Change of control on share sale does not amount to TUPE transfer

    Date:

    17 November 2006

    In The Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam EAT/0253/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that a TUPE transfer could not be inferred from the fact that, after an acquisition of shares, the holding company exercised management control of the subsidiary.

• expand

  Sweetin v Coral Racing [2006] IRLR 252 EAT (3 other reports)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Compensation for failure to consult on TUPE transfer

    Date:

    7 April 2006

    In Sweetin v Coral Racing, the EAT holds that awards of compensation for a failure to inform and consult about staff transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations should be penal and not compensatory. 

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 April 2006

    Joe Glavina, of Addleshaw Goddard outlines the latest legal rulings and explains what you need to do to avoid tribunals.

  • Transfer ruling encourages responsibility

    Date:

    14 February 2006

    Awards of compensation for a failure to inform and consult about staff transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) should be penal and not compensatory, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Sweetin v Coral Racing.

• expand disabled

  Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG [2006] IRLR 400 ECJ (0 other reports)