Auteurs
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More
Auteurs
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

Senior professional support lawyer

Read More

17 juin 2020

Law at Work - June 2020 – 4 de 5 Publications

TUPE: beneficial changes to contract void

  • QUICK READ

Ferguson and others v Astrea Asset Management Ltd UKEAT/0139/19

Why care

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) provide that changes made to contracts will be void where the principal reason for the change is a TUPE transfer. Typically, this principle applies to prevent detrimental changes being made to employees' contracts. However, a point which arises less often is whether this principle operates to prevent changes being effective where they are made to the employee's benefit. According to the EAT, the answer is yes, the principle can operate both ways, it will apply even where the changes made are to the employee's advantage.

The case

Four owner directors of a company lost a contract to an incoming service provider (the transferee in a service provision change). Just before the transfer, they varied their own contracts, giving themselves enhanced bonuses and severance payments. When the transferee discovered this, it refused to take some of the employees on and dismissed others for gross misconduct. The key finding of the decision is that the changes were held to be void; the sole or principal reason they were made was because of a transfer. The EAT rejected arguments that, based on previous case law, only detrimental changes are void.

What to take away

This case is rather unusual in that it concerns directors who were clearly acting in an abusive way towards the transferee and who were looking to make an unscrupulous gain for themselves. However, it does clarify that it is not only detrimental changes that will be void. The state of the law in this area is complex and advice should always be sought where changes are being made following a TUPE transfer. A Court of Appeal case, Power v Security Services, is an example of changes successfully being negotiated with employees following a TUPE transfer and was held to be distinguishable.

Dans cette série

Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

Pensions – always on the agenda

QUICK READ

par Auteurs

Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

TUPE: beneficial changes to contract void

QUICK READ

par Shireen Shaikh, Kathryn Clapp

Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

Law at Work: Hot topics - June 2020

QUICK READ

par Shireen Shaikh, Kathryn Clapp

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

people walking
Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

Wake-up call to 'middleman' businesses introducing individuals to end-users

19 octobre 2020

par Shireen Shaikh

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
people walking
Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

New Government Job Support Scheme

24 septembre 2020
QUICK READ

par Paul Callaghan et Shireen Shaikh

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
waiting room
Droit Social, pensions et mobilité

No requirement for employer to re-engage employee following unfair dismissal where lack of trust and confidence in employee's capability

Kelly v PGA European Tour

16 septembre 2020
QUICK READ

par Kathryn Clapp

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus