Controlling the abuse of TUPE, outlined by John McMullen
In brief
- Daddy’s Dance Hall rule: employees protected from a detriment suffered as a result of a transfer of an undertaking and protected from having to waive any of their rights.
- Power v Regent Security Services Ltd: the Daddy’s Dance Hall rule only applied to prevent variations by reason of the transfer which were to the detriment (as opposed to favourable variations) of the employee, under TUPE 1981.
- TUPE 2006, reg 4(4): consolidating the Daddy’s Dance Hall rule.
- Ferguson v Astrea Asset Management Ltd: when directors/employees improved their contractual benefits in view of a pending transfer these variations were either void or fell foul of the EU abuse of law principle.
How many times have your clients taken a transfer of an undertaking, where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) apply, only to find salaries and benefits of transferring employees were suddenly inflated before the transfer, thereby passing these responsibilities to the transferee under the automatic transfer rules under TUPE? In
