Call +44(0)20 3828 0350

Employment Law News


TUPE and long-term sickness benefits

A long-term sick employee transferred under TUPE but was denied long-term sickness benefits by both the old and new employers’ PHI insurers. After he was dismissed, he brought claims against the new employer…

Read More »

Compensation ordered for failure to provide employee liability information where there was a reasonable belief employees would bring claims

The First Tier Tribunal has held that an outgoing employer breached its obligations under the TUPE regulations by failing to notify the incoming employer of potential claims for unlawful deductions of wages. The fact that the failure to pay happened after the deadline for notification was not a barrier, as the outgoing employer had reasonable grounds for believing wages would go unpaid before it passed information to the incoming employer.

Read More »

EAT holds TUPE transfer has taken place after share sale

Normally, a share sale would not constitute a TUPE transfer because the identity of the employer does not change. However, the courts have accepted that there may be a transfer of an undertaking to a holding company or a sister company following a share sale. In this case, the control exercised by the parent company of the purchaser of the target’s shares and extensive integration exercises carried out by it led to the judgment that there had been a TUPE transfer.

Read More »

Static trumps the dynamic approach

In July 2013, the European Court of Justice in Herron v Parkwood Leisure held that employees who TUPE transfer to a new organisation cannot benefit from collectively agreed terms where such terms are agreed after the date of the transfer and where the new employer is not a party to those collective negotiations.

Read More »

TUPE and ‘organised groupings’

In Ceva Freight (UK) v Seawell, Mr Moffat was employed by Ceva Freight, a logistics and freight company, and worked in the “outbound team”. Although the team worked for a variety of clients, unlike his colleagues, Mr Moffat spent 100% of his time working on the account of one client, Seawell. In fact, Mr Moffat’s contract specifically said that he had been employed for the purpose of enabling the contract with Seawell to be performed.

Read More »