header-logo header-logo

29 January 2010 / John McMullen
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

TUPE or not TUPE

Part 1: Consulting on redundancy & TUPE transfers by Dr John McMullen

Recent months have seen a number of interesting cases on information to and consultation with employee representatives, both in the context of multiple redundancies and transfer of undertakings (TUPE). All of them pose challenges in their application and scope. This is the first of two articles noting these developments.

The timing of consultation

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,
s 188 (as amended) an employer proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees of one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, must consult about the dismissals with the appropriate representatives of any of the employees affected by the proposed dismissals, or who may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.

“Proposal” to dismiss has widely been regarded as something approaching, albeit preceding, a decision to dismiss. Under ageing UK case law this narrow view of “proposing” would mean that consultation does not have to begin until a fairly advanced stage

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
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll