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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll