|
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 ((SI 2006/246 )) known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced tu-pee,〔(Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 or 'the TUPE (pronounced "tu-pee") )〕 are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Business Transfers Directive.〔(Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses )〕 It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations (SI 1981/1794) which implemented the original Directive.〔(Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses )〕 The regulations' main aims are to ensure that, in connection with the transfer, employment is protected (i.e. substantially continued). * employees are not dismissed * employees' most important terms and conditions of contracts are not worsened * affected employees are informed and consulted through representatives These obligations of protection are placed on the transferring companies both before, during and after the transfer. The obligations are relieved if there is an "economic, technical or organisational" reason for the cessation of employment Regulation 7(1)(b), or alteration to employees terms and conditions, Regulation 4(4)(b).pptyp This does not apply to transfers which go merely through the sale of a company's shares. When that happens, because the company is still the same company, all contractual obligations stay the same. The Directive and Regulations apply to other forms of transfer, through sale of physical assets and leases. The regulations also apply in some cases for work transferred to contractors. This protected contract terms for workers include hours of work, pay, length of service and so on, but pension entitlement is excluded. ==Contents== ;1. Citation, commencement and extent ;2. Interpretation ;3. A relevant transfer *this takes on the ''Spijkers'' language of whether an entity retains its identity, r.3(1)(a) *the definition of economic entity as an 'organised grouping of resources' comes from ''Suzen'' too, r.3(2). *it also now applies explicitly to a 'service provision change', i.e. contracting out services. An example of this case is ''RCO Support Services'', r.3(1)(b) *the regulations make clear that a service which is merely performing a 'single specified task' does not fall within TUPE, r.3(3)(a)(ii) *the definition of an undertaking, to which the regulations apply as something engaged in economic activities, whether public or private, comes from an EC competition law case called ''Höfner and Elser v Macrotron GmbH'' () ECR I-1979〔(Judgment of the Court of 23 April 1991. Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH – Case C-41/90 )〕 r.3(4)(a) *a new exception is that an 'administrative reorganisation of public administrative authorities' will fall outside TUPE's scope is still unknown in its effect, r.3(5) ;4. Effect of relevant transfer on contracts of employment *the core of this law, r.4(1) provides that employment contracts 'shall have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the person so employed and the transferee'. So new business buyers cannot escape the old business' obligations to its workforce *it also points out that to fall within the protection of TUPE, you had to have had an employment contract "immediately before the transfer", r.4(3). This was the issue in ''Litster v Forth Dry Dock'' () ICR 341, where a relaxed and purposive interpretation was given. So, "immediately" can really mean a while, with wiggle room. *in r.4(4) it says that variations of employment terms 'shall be void' if the main reason is the transfer itself or 'a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.' In r.4(5) it is emphasised that employees and employers can agree to change terms where this is not the case. The normal rule is that even consensual agreements are void. *where an employee objects to the change in the identity of the employer, then r.4(7) states he will not become one. He is to be treated as if his contract terminated when the transfer takes place, but that he is not dismissed (unless of course the employer actually does dismiss him), r.4(8). This issue came up in ''Wilson v St Helens Borough Council'' () 2 AC 52; *where the contract is varied detrimentally on transfer, employees can treat themselves as dismissed by the employer. In the Humphreys case (University of Oxford v Humphreys (1) and Associated Examining Board (2) () ICR 405, Court of Appeal) it was decided that an employee who resigns on or before a TUPE transfer because of well-founded fears that the new owner intends to impose worse terms and conditions of employment than those provided by the original owner can claim constructive wrongful dismissal against the original owner. Also the Tapere case ruled on the interpretation of mobility clauses, and where a relevant transfer involves a substantial change in working conditions which is to the employee’s material detriment, held that "detriment" should be considered using the subjective approach which applies in discrimination law. ;5. Effect of relevant transfer on collective agreements ;6. Effect of relevant transfer on trade union recognition ;7. Dismissal of employee because of relevant transfer *states that employees will be considered dismissed unfairly, if they are dismissed without the employer showing an economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissal. What is certainly not included in this concept is dismissals simply to improve the price of the company before its sale.〔''Whitehouse v Charles A Blatchford & Son Ltd'' () ICR 542, says the reason would have to be one connected with the business' future prospects.〕 *where there is an economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissals, these are considered 'substantial reasons' (i.e. justified reasons) under the fair dismissal provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (s.98(2)(c)). The result for the employee is that he is considered redundant, and thereby should receive a compensation payment if they have been an employee for more than two years under s.135 ERA 1996. *importantly, an employee dismissed by the seller of the business is deemed to have been dismissed by the purchaser too. This means an unfair dismissal claim can be brought against either party. ;8. Insolvency ;9. Variations of contract where transferors are subject to relevant insolvency proceedings ;10. Pensions ;11. Notification of Employee Liability Information ;12. Remedy for failure to notify employee liability information ;13. Duty to inform and consult representatives ;14. Election of employee representatives ;15. Failure to inform or consult ;16. Failure to inform or consult, supplemental ;17. Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance ;18. Restriction on contracting out 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|