Practical guidance on dealing with the benefits of employees who transfer to the organisation under TUPE, including the difference between contractual and discretionary benefits; flexible benefit schemes; and the risks if there is no "ETO reason" for varying terms and conditions.
In DLA Piper's case of the week, Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd v Seawell Ltd, the Court of Session provided guidance on what constitutes an "organised grouping of employees" on a service provision change for TUPE purposes.
In I Lab Facilities Ltd v Metcalfe and others  IRLR 605 EAT, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had been wrong to uphold claims under reg.13 of TUPE in respect of a failure to inform and consult representatives of employees of that part of an insolvent business that was not sold. The duty to inform and consult arose only in respect of those employees employed in the wholly distinct part of the business that was sold and transferred.
In Shields Automotive Ltd v Langdon and another EAT/0059/12, the EAT held that a protective award of seven weeks' pay in respect of the employer's technical breach of its obligation to consult on a TUPE transfer was too high.
The European Court of Justice has held that a transferee is not bound by "dynamic" clauses in contracts of employment referring to collective agreements negotiated after the transfer, where that transferee cannot participate in the negotiation process.
A Northern Ireland industrial tribunal has referred to the European Court of Justice the question of whether or not legislation that requires collective redundancy consultation only where an employer is proposing to make redundant 20 or more employees "at one establishment" is compatible with European law.
Practical guidance on dealing with the situation where the transferee disputes that TUPE applies to the transfer in question, in particular in relation to service provision changes.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to TUPE.