Ian Smith combines an element of sanity with the esoteric & the notorious
This month’s column mainly covers two esoteric areas, of notorious difficulty. The first is the concept of a “service provision change’”, introduced into the 2006 version of the TUPE Regulations, initially as a simplification exercise in contracting-out cases, but now perhaps starting to be seen in its true colours (actually red—as “in tooth and claw”). The second is yet another case on equal pay comparison within local authorities, a matter which should be pronounced upon at last by the Supreme Court later this year. To restore a small element of sanity, the last case is a more standard one on tribunal procedure; it concerns a well known issue/irritant arising where an adjournment is requested (possibly not for the first time) on health grounds and its result may not be what employment judges would want to hear.
TUPE & service provision changes
The decision of Judge Clark in Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-up Ltd [2011]
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
