header-logo header-logo

How & why not all transfers are TUPE transfers

11 April 2019 / John McMullen
Issue: 7836 / Categories: Features , Employment , TUPE
printer mail-detail

John McMullen navigates the Employment Rights Act to find a solution to complex transfers

  • ‘Successor’ employers and re-employment orders.
  • Transfers between associated employers.
  • A baffling question for employees.

Whenever employees are transferred from one employer to another, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) are the practitioner’s first port of call. However, not all cases of transfer of employment involve a TUPE transfer. In such cases the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), preserving statutory continuity of employment in certain instances of transfer of employment, may be an important consideration. These provisions apply irrespective of whether there is a TUPE transfer. In this article we discuss two recent cases in this area. The first concerns the power of employment tribunals to order re-engagement of an unfairly dismissed employee, either by the dismissing employer or by a successor of that employer, under ERA 1996, s 115(1). The key legal issue here is what exactly a ‘successor’ means. The second

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll