header-logo header-logo

A TUPE ace to bear in mind?

51261
In the light of a recent case, John McMullen highlights the potential use of TUPE, reg 4(9) in unfair dismissal claims
  • Lewis v Dow Silicones and the scope of reg 4(9) of TUPE.
  • The approach to applying ISS Facility Services NV in the UK via EU retained law.

In this article we examine Lewis v Dow Silicones UKEAT/0155/20/LA (V), which demonstrates that when an employee feels badly treated and resigns, claiming unfair dismissal, but fails because he has not shown a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the employer, he has another trick up his sleeve under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). He may rely on reg 4(9) of TUPE which provides: ‘… where a relevant transfer involves or would involve a substantial change in working conditions to the material detriment of a person whose contract of employment is or would be transferred under paragraph (1), such an employee may treat the contract of employment as having

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll