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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll