Out of synch — harmonisation dismissals following TUPE transfer were unlawful
The claimants, along with around 1,500 other employees, transferred to the employer. After the transfer, the college employed some 3,500 staff on 37 different sets of terms and conditions of employment providing offender learning services. When it became clear that the services were not economically viable, around 300 redundancies were proposed, alongside a programme of harmonising terms and conditions of remaining staff. The claimants refused to accept the new terms because they involved a pay cut. They were dismissed and re-hired on the new terms and conditions and brought unfair dismissal claims.
The tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the dismissals were automatically unfair and the court of appeal has upheld this. They were for a reason connected with the transfer but the college could not show that they were for an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce. This was because the claimants’ dismissals did not involve a change in employee numbers or functions…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump