-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 15 July 2005
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 14 January 2005
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
This week's case law round-up from Eversheds, covering pregnancy-related dismissals and transfers not covered by TUPE Regulations.
-
- Date:
- 7 November 2003
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 19 September 2003
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 15 August 2003
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 10 January 2003
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 11 November 2002
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In MITIE Managed Services Ltd v French and others, the EAT holds that a contractual right to participate in an employer's profit-sharing scheme may, following a TUPE transfer, become a right to participate in a scheme of "substantial equivalence" only, if the right to continue participating in the original scheme is absurd, impossible or unjust.
-
- Date:
- 23 September 2002
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In RCO Support Services and another v Unison and others, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision of an employment tribunal that there were relevant transfers of undertakings within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations in the form of labour-intensive cleaning and catering support activities, respectively, despite the fact that almost none of the workforce was taken on by the transferee.