TUPE
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.
Sophy Robinson and Karen Fletcher of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
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.
This week's case law round-up from Eversheds, covering pregnancy-related dismissals and transfers not covered by TUPE Regulations.
In Dudley Bower Building Services Ltd v Lowe and others, the EAT holds that whether a stable economic entity exists in any given case, for the purposes of a transfer under the TUPE Regulations, is always a question of fact and degree.
In Glendale Managed Services v Graham and others the Court of Appeal holds that a transferee employer of a local authority undertaking was under a contractual obligation to increase an employee's pay in accordance with nationally agreed rates.
In Alamo Group (Europe) Ltd v (1) Tucker (2) Twose of Tiverton Ltd, the EAT holds that where a transferor fails to comply with its duty to inform and consult upon a relevant transfer, liability for that failure passes to the transferee under reg. 5 of the TUPE Regulations.
Article 141 of the EC Treaty of Rome is not limited to situations where men and women work for the same employer, but it does not cover the situation where pay differences between equal pay claimants and their comparators cannot be attributed to a single source, so that there is no single body responsible for the inequality and which can restore equal treatment, the European Court of Justice holds in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to TUPE.