This employment tribunal held that a heating engineer whose new employer had different types of client and required him to do more of his own administration work did not suffer substantial changes to his working conditions to his material detriment after a TUPE transfer.
The Advocate General has taken the view that the TUPE Regulations can be given a "dynamic" interpretation, suggesting that UK law can permit the survival after transfer of a pay increase negotiated under a collective agreement signed by the transferor before the transfer.
In The Manchester College v Hazel and another EAT/0642/11 & EAT/0136/12, the EAT upheld a ruling by the employment tribunal that dismissals as a result of post-TUPE-transfer harmonisation were automatically unfair because they did not constitute an ETO reason "entailing changes in the workforce".
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.