header-logo header-logo

All change please

05 April 2012 / Charlotte Stern
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

Charlotte Stern reports on the latest TUPE developments

Since the implementation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE), service provision changes have been all the rage. They are very much in favour with the current government, which appears to see encouraging the transfer of services in and out of the public sector as its raison d’être. The reality is that after a transfer, the same employees end up providing the same services to the same client and the new contractor is saddled with the employees’ original contractual terms, unless they manage to show that the contractual changes are either unrelated to the transfer or are for economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons entailing changes in the workforce. Further, TUPE effectively arms employees by:
 

  • allowing an employee to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated, where the relevant transfer involves a substantial change in working conditions to his material detriment;
  • expressly permitting an employee to accept a repudiatory breach of contract by his employer and terminate
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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll