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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll