header-logo header-logo

05 April 2012 / Charlotte Stern
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

All change please

Charlotte Stern reports on the latest TUPE developments

Since the implementation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE), service provision changes have been all the rage. They are very much in favour with the current government, which appears to see encouraging the transfer of services in and out of the public sector as its raison d’être. The reality is that after a transfer, the same employees end up providing the same services to the same client and the new contractor is saddled with the employees’ original contractual terms, unless they manage to show that the contractual changes are either unrelated to the transfer or are for economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons entailing changes in the workforce. Further, TUPE effectively arms employees by:
 

  • allowing an employee to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated, where the relevant transfer involves a substantial change in working conditions to his material detriment;
  • expressly permitting an employee to accept a repudiatory breach of contract by his employer and terminate his contract; and
  • allowing employees to claim unfair dismissal
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll