TUPE

New and updated

• Date:

  8 September 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE: Service provision change within meaning of TUPE Regulations 2006 had occurred

  In Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2009] IRLR 700 EAT, the EAT held that, when determining whether or not there has been a service provision change within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006, tribunals should consider if the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are essentially or fundamentally the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor.

• Date:

  19 May 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Time limit where employee relies on employer's long-term failure to make reasonable adjustments

  In Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2009] IRLR 288 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, where an employee relies on the employer's alleged continuing omission to make a reasonable adjustment, in the absence of evidence as to the date of the employer's decision, the time limit for instituting tribunal proceedings runs from the end of the period during which the employer might reasonably have been expected to effect the adjustment, unless there is an earlier inconsistent act.

• Date:

  27 April 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Contracts of employment: Tribunal erred in not determining to which aspect of a bonus scheme the employer's discretion attached

  In Small and others v Boots Co and another [2009] All ER (D) 200 (Jan) EAT, the EAT held that the fact that the employer had stated that a bonus was discretionary did not necessarily mean that it had no contractual effect. The employer's discretion could relate to: whether or not to operate a bonus system at all; whether or not to award a bonus in a given year; or the amount of bonus to be awarded.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case of the week: TUPE and supplier contracts

  This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers TUPE and supplier contracts.

• Type:

  FAQs

  Where a transferee has no need for the employees transferred to it under TUPE, should the redundancy pool also include its existing employees?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Must a transferee check the immigration status of employees who transfer to it under TUPE or can it rely on the transferor's right to work checks?

• Date:

  25 March 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE: Duty to consult ends with transfer

  In Amicus and another v City Building (Glasgow) LLP and others [2009] IRLR 253 EAT, the EAT held that, after a transfer, the transferee employer is not obliged to consult with representatives of the transferred employees in respect of the measures that it proposes to take.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE update

  Twenty-eight years after its birth, TUPE still raises thorny questions. Its complexity is evidenced by the number of groundbreaking tribunal cases which have come to the fore recently, many of which could have far-reaching ramifications at a time of economic instability, writes Lesley Murphy.

• Date:

  16 September 2008

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE: Objection to transfer not valid

  In Capita Health Solutions v McLean and another [2008] IRLR 595, the EAT held that an employee's objection to becoming employed by the transferee did not have the effect of preventing the transfer of her contract of employment, as she had undertaken work for the transferee after the transfer date.

• Date:

  11 August 2008

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE: Liability under employment contracts should not be split between transferees

  In Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley and others; Angel Services (UK) Ltd v Hambley and others EAT/0488/07 & EAT/0489/07, the EAT overturned an employment tribunal decision to split liability for employment contracts in proportion to the split in activities after a service provision change.