1 / 11

IER Annual Employment Law Conference TUPE - Gold Platting or Gold Stripping

IER Annual Employment Law Conference TUPE - Gold Platting or Gold Stripping. Bruce Robin October 2012 . Introduction. TUPE Purpose - protect rights of workers where change of employer Government proposals for Reform: Call for evidence on effectiveness of TUPE 2006

galia
Download Presentation

IER Annual Employment Law Conference TUPE - Gold Platting or Gold Stripping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IERAnnual Employment Law ConferenceTUPE - Gold Platting or Gold Stripping Bruce Robin October 2012

  2. Introduction TUPE • Purpose - protect rights of workers where change of employer • Government proposals for Reform: • Call for evidence on effectiveness of TUPE 2006 • Government response 14th September 2012 • What’s the beef with service provision changes?

  3. Background to Service Provision Change • Acquired Rights Directive (ARD) – standard transfers • Landsorganisationen i Danmark Ny MØlle Kro 1989 ICR330 • Süzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung Gm H Krankenhausservice [1997] ICR662 • Spijkers Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV and Anor [1986] 2 CML R296 – the multi-factorial test

  4. SPC – The UK’s approach - P&O Trans European Limited v Initial Transport Services Ltd and Ors [2003] IRLR 128 - Scottish Coal Company Ltd v McCormick and Ors [2005] ALL ERO14 • Government Consultation 2005 • Ongoing problems - CLECE SA v Maria Socorro [2011] IRLR 251 - Ivana Scattalon v Ministero Adele Istruzione dell Universita della Ricerca C-108/2010

  5. So what is a Service Provision Change? • Organised grouping of employees situated in GB which has, as its principal purpose carrying out activities on behalf of the client. • Outsource to a new contractor • Subject to a change of contractor • Brought back in-house

  6. Service Provision Change - 2 • Have the activities continued? - Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust v Hamshaw and Others UKEAT/0037/11 - Johnson Control Limited v Campbell and Anor UKEAT/0041/12 • What happens when the activities are split amongst different contracts? - Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley [2008] IRLR/682 - Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-Up Ltd UKEAT/0462/10 - Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and Ors UKEAT/0223/11 - Argyll Coastal Services Ltd v Sterling and ors UKEATS/0012/11

  7. Service Provision Change 3 • When does a Service Provision Change amount to the provision of goods? - Pannu and Ors v Goe W King Ltd (In Liquidation) and Ors UKEAT/0023/11

  8. Changes to Contract • All liabilities arise under or in connection with, the contract of employment transfer to the transferee • Daddy’s Dance Hall principles in TUPE 2006 • Collective agreements - Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Alemo-Herron and ors [2011] UKSC26 • Pensions - Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe MacFarlane Ltd [2003] ICR50 - Proctor and Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget and Anor [2012] IRLR 733 • Pensions Act 2004 • Transfer of Employment (Pension Protection) Regs 2005

  9. Dismissal - 1 • An employee who is dismissed where sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the transfer or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce • Regulation 7 TUPE 2006 • Must be a change in numbers of the workforce or a change in the job function - Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd

  10. Dismissal – 2 What constitutes “workforce”? • Single person - Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and Anor UKEAT 0339/10 • Franchisees - Meter U Ltd v Ackroyd and Ors [2012] ICR 834 What about the ETO reason? - Manchester College v Hazel [2012] UKEAT 13612

  11. Conclusion Way ahead – resisting change Further information: LELR www.thompsons.law.co.uk

More Related