翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Taylor Township, Michigan ・ Taylor Township, Minnesota ・ Taylor Township, Ogle County, Illinois ・ Taylor Township, Owen County, Indiana ・ Taylor Township, Pennsylvania ・ Taylor Township, Traverse County, Minnesota ・ Taylor Township, Union County, Ohio ・ Taylor Tran ・ Taylor Trensch ・ Taylor Twellman ・ Taylor University ・ Taylor University College ・ Taylor v Attorney-General ・ Taylor v Beere ・ Taylor v Caldwell ・ Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd ・ Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board ・ Taylor v Plumer ・ Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland ・ Taylor v. Beckham ・ Taylor v. Illinois ・ Taylor v. Louisiana ・ Taylor v. Mississippi ・ Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. ・ Taylor v. Sturgell ・ Taylor v. Taintor ・ Taylor v. United States ・ Taylor v. United States (1990) ・ Taylor Valley ・ Taylor Vancil Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd ''Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd'' (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations. ==Facts== Mr Taylor was a chartered accountant, employed as an administrator by the SouthEastern Train Company, a sub division of British Rail. It was privatised and sold to Connex South Eastern Ltd in 1996. In 1997 he got a new job as Deputy Company Secretary, but on his new contract he made amendments, amounting to a counter offer in contract, therefore, according to the EAT, remaining employed under the terms of his old agreement. In 1998 he was given, according to ongoing changes throughout the company, another new contract, which contained clauses that were to his detriment (he lost some holiday and redundancy entitlement). He complained, but the company would not budge. They insisted he accept the terms or have three weeks notice. The tribunal found that he was redundant, but that he was dismissed not for this〔ERA 1996 s 163(2) there is a statutory presumption that someone loses their job by reason of redundancy (i.e. so that a redudancy payment is available), unless the employer proves otherwise.〕 but for 'some other substantial reason' under s 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He therefore lost his claim for unfair dismissal. He appealed. 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「Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.