header-logo header-logo

25 March 2011 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Safeguard or straitjacket?

employment_4

Parliament should tread carefully when considering calls to reform TUPE regulations, say Chris Bryden & Michael Salter

Despite having been on the statute books since 1981, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) continue to prove controversial. The Times in a recent leader (23 February 2011 “Terms and Conditions”) described them as “one of the chief obstacles to business in Britain” and as a “significant deterrent to competition”. It noted the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) decree that there is nothing in the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD) that required this country, when implementing it, to draft its regulations as tightly as TUPE is framed.

ARD v TUPE

An example of the extent of TUPE compared to the ARD, was provided in CLECE SA v Maria Socorro Martin Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa (C-463/09), a referral from Spain to the ECJ, where the court held that a mere change in the provision of a service (here, the in-sourcing of a school cleaning contract) is not a relevant transfer

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll