作者
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

高级专业支持律师

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

高级专业支持律师

Read More
作者
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

高级专业支持律师

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

高级专业支持律师

Read More

2020年6月17日

Law at Work - June 2020 – 4 / 5 观点

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.

本系列内容

就业、养老金和流动性

Pensions – always on the agenda

QUICK READ

作者 作者

就业、养老金和流动性

TUPE: beneficial changes to contract void

QUICK READ

作者 Shireen Shaikh, Kathryn Clapp

就业、养老金和流动性

Law at Work: Hot topics - June 2020

QUICK READ

作者 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
就业、养老金和流动性

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

2020年10月19日

作者 Shireen Shaikh

点击此处了解更多
people walking
就业、养老金和流动性

New Government Job Support Scheme

2020年9月24日
QUICK READ

作者 Paul Callaghan 以及 Shireen Shaikh

点击此处了解更多
waiting room
就业、养老金和流动性

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

2020年9月16日
QUICK READ

作者 Kathryn Clapp

点击此处了解更多