header-logo header-logo

01 May 2008 / Kate Edwards
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

The power to Improve

Kate Edwards discusses how employee rights can be enhanced after a TUPE transfer

Regent Security Services Limited v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 118, [2007] All ER (D) 298 (Nov) concerned the interpretation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE), but has wide implications for how the rights and obligations of employees and employers upon a TUPE transfer taking place are to be construed. In particular, the decision makes clear that upon transfer an employee not only retains pre-transfer rights, but may acquire additional rights by agreement with the transferee employer. Where such additional rights are acquired, eg by consensual contractual variation, the employee thereafter has a choice of whether to rely upon the old pre-transfer contract, or new (varied) version. The decision thus represents a pro-employee stance in which the EC Acquired Rights Directive 1977/1877 (the Directive) is construed so as to give maximum choice and maximum benefit to employees who transfer under the TUPE Regulations. The transferee employer, however, may be left with an unpredictable burden.

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll