header-logo header-logo

TUPE changes: a bad move?

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll