Dismissed employees held not to be ‘affected employees’ of a TUPE transfer
5th August, 2013
When a business or undertaking, or a part of one, is sold and this amounts to a ‘relevant transfer’ under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”), both the transferor and the transferee have a duty to inform and consult the appropriate representatives of any ‘affected employees’ with a view to seeking their agreement to the proposed measures before the transfer takes place. The transferor and the transferee are jointly and severally liable for any compensation which is awarded for failure to comply with this duty.
In I Lab Facilities Limited v Metcalfe and Others UKEAT/0441/10/JOJ, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) ruled that where an insolvent business was made up of two distinct parts, one of which was sold and the other was closed, the employees of the latter were not affected employees and were therefore not entitled to be informed and consulted in relation to the transfer.
The claimants were employed by I Lab (UK) Limited (“ILUK”), which provided services to the film and television industry and ‘rushes’ work. ILUK then merged with a company that specialised in post-production work. The core activities of the two previous businesses remained distinct; staff worked in separate premises and did different types of work at varied hours. ILUK subsequently went into liquidation. The following month the ‘rushes’ part of ILUK was sold to I Lab Facilities Limited (“ILF”). Although it had initially been hoped that ILF would also take on some of the post-production work of ILUK, part of the business was closed down and the employees were dismissed. The dismissed employees claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed, that their jobs should have transferred under TUPE to the new owner and that there had been a breach of the obligation to inform and consult in relation to the transfer.
The EAT allowed their appeal, holding that the two parts of the business were self-contained. The claimants were not therefore ‘affected employees’ of the transfer. The closure of the post-production arm of the business was what had affected them; not the transfer of the ‘rushes’ part. The EAT did not believe that the legislation was meant to cover this kind of indirect effect. Furthermore, as regards the earlier intended transfer of both parts of the business, the wording of the legislation is such that no complaint of a breach of obligations can be brought unless there has indeed been a relevant transfer.
For further information or advice in relation to your obligations when undertaking a TUPE transfer, please contact Helen Watson on 01244 405565 or send an email to [email protected].
You might also be interested in...
15th May, 2018
Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »
24th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »
11th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »