header-logo header-logo

21 February 2014 / Philip Thornton
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

TUPE changes: a bad move?

web_thornton

Philip Thornton discusses the new wording and uncertainties of TUPE

The majority of the amendments to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) came into force on 31 January 2014. This article suggests that, for a variety of reasons, the way in which some of these changes have been implemented may cause considerable uncertainty in the operation of TUPE for some time to come. Although the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) has provided guidance on the operation of TUPE following the amendments, in certain respects that guidance does not appear to resolve these problems.

When a dismissal will be automatically unfair

The most significant change with regard to automatic unfair dismissal protection under the 2014 amendments is that the concept of a “reason connected with the transfer” is entirely expunged from reg 7, ie in determining whether or not a dismissal is automatically unfair, no express distinction is drawn any longer between where the reason for the dismissal is:

  • “the transfer itself”; or
  • a
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

Carter-Ruck—Tomas Vail

Carter-Ruck—Tomas Vail

Carter-Ruck strengthens International team with appointment of arbitration partner Tomas Vail

Slater Heelis—Nick Terry

Slater Heelis—Nick Terry

Slater Heelis strengthens crime and regulatory team with appointment of Nick Terry as partner

Payne Hicks Beach—Thomas Moran & Sarah Gogan

Payne Hicks Beach—Thomas Moran & Sarah Gogan

Payne Hicks Beach strengthens private wealth offering with appointment of two new partners

NEWS
Construction workers injured in comparable accidents can face sharply different routes to compensation on opposite sides of the Atlantic
Victims of undue influence may have more options than simply unwinding a tainted transaction, with courts able to order profits accounts, compensation and, exceptionally, severance
Disabled people could lose vital safeguards following the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Cheshire West test for deprivation of liberty, two barristers warn
A formidable reputation cannot protect a law firm when partner departures, fragile finances and client uncertainty begin feeding each other
Businesses incorporating open-source software into commercial products could face obligations to disclose valuable source code, with AI-assisted development making licensing risks harder to track
back-to-top-scroll