header-logo header-logo

04 November 2010 / John McMullen
Issue: 7440 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

TUPE or not TUPE

new_image_16_4

Part 2: Collective issues on Tupe Transfers by Dr John McMullen

Under reg 6 of TUPE the transferee must continue the recognition of any independent trade union previously recognised by the transferor in respect of that undertaking or part. That obligation, however, is dependent upon the undertaking or part being transferred retaining a separate identity in the hands of a transferee. The first point to note is reg 6, requiring retention of a separate identity of the undertaking for the purposes of the transfer of representation of employees has different wording from the Acquired Rights Directive.

In contrast with reg 6, Art 6 of the Directive provides for the preservation of representation of employees where the undertaking or business or part of an undertaking or business preserves its autonomy. At first glance it might be thought that the word “identity” in reg 6 should be easily construed in line with “autonomy” but, as the Court of Justice of the European Communities has pointed out in Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (FSP)

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