In North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others [2006] UKHL 29, the House of Lords holds that despite the intentions of the parties concerned, seconded employees were transferred to the new undertaking on the date when employer responsibility for carrying on the business transferred.
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.
Judith Harris of Addleshaw Goddard brings you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provides advice on what to do about them.
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.
In Howard v (1) Millrise Ltd and another, the EAT holds that the correct interpretation of reg.10 (8A) of TUPE is that, if there is no trade union and no elected employee representatives, the employer is under a duty to inform and consult employees affected by the transfer of the undertaking.
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.