A quiz for line managers to test their knowledge on TUPE transfers.
In Abellio London Ltd (formerly Travel London Ltd) v Musse and others; CentreWest London Buses Ltd v Musse and others  IRLR 360 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had been entitled to uphold claims that employees who resigned because of a TUPE transfer that involved a significant change in their place of work had been subjected to a substantial change in working conditions giving rise to a material detriment. They had therefore been unfairly dismissed pursuant to reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations 2006.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the tribunal was correct to find that the respondent did not have an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) defence in respect of the two claimants, who were dismissed as a result of harmonisation following a post-TUPE transfer redundancy process.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that two claimants did not fail to mitigate their losses when they refused to accept self-employed terms offered by a transferee that refused to recognise the continuation of their employment under TUPE.
In Meter U Ltd v Ackroyd and others; Meter U Ltd v Hardy and others  IRLR 367 EAT, the EAT held that the dismissal of staff who refused to become franchisees following a transfer was capable of being for an ETO reason. Genuine franchisees were not employees, so the requirement for "changes in the workforce" was met provided that the new arrangement was not a sham.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to TUPE.