header-logo header-logo

21 July 2011 / John McMullen
Issue: 7475 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

The golden goose?

John McMullen considers if TUPE is alive & well

Recent months have seen vigorous debates about the policy aspects of protection of employees’ rights on business transfers and outsourcing, as well as the usual crop of case law. We take the opportunity to analyse these in this article.

Death of the codes of practice?

In relation to public sector outsourcing, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE), are supplemented by codes of practice. The primary source is the cabinet office guidance on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector (COSOP), originally dated January 2000 but revised in November 2007. An important aspect of COSOP is Annex A, which deals with pensions: Staff Transfers from Central Government: A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions: Guidance to Departments and Agencies (HM Treasury, 1999) (the Fair Deal policy). This obliges contractors to make broadly similar pension provision to that available from the previous public sector employer. The broad similarity of the contractor’s provision has traditionally been tested by the award

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll