档案: 管道

订阅 to 管道 RSS Feed

英国更新– 管道 service provision changes become more complex with the potential involvement of multiple clients and contracts

In Ottimo Property Services Ltd -v- Duncan and another, the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal has decided that, where several different clients change service provider at or around the same time, each individual service provision change can be considered together to decide how 管道 applies. The facts Mr Duncan worked as a site maintenance engineer at a … 继续阅读

结束“percentage argument” in 管道 negotiations?

Time after time, businesses are faced with (and use themselves) the classic argument in 管道 negotiations: “Of course the employee must transfer under 管道 – he spends more than 50% of his time 上 the transferring service”. It is a very convenient and much rolled-out line of reasoning, which can work in both directions (“Of … 继续阅读

管道 service provision change –看看发生了什么‘on the ground’以及合同

In the recent case of Lorne Stewart plc v Hyde and others, the EAT made clear that it is important not to get side-tracked by the details of formal written contracts which are in place between the parties before and after a potential 管道 transfer, if such details do not reflect reality. 而是必不可少的… 继续阅读

Collective agreements negotiated after a 管道 transfer will not bind transferee employers

欧洲法院“ECJ”) has handed down its judgment in a key, long-running 管道 case –Alemo-Herron诉Parkwood Leisure Ltd.的判决对于定期通过以下方式继承雇员的雇主而言是个好消息。‘TUPE transfers’,尤其是那些最初在公共部门或从事大量工作的雇员中… 继续阅读

When is an 有组织的员工分组 not an 有组织的员工分组? (UK 管道 update)

Imagine a scenario where 上e employee spends 100% of his time working for 上e client. That client takes its services back in-house. Does the employee transfer to the client under 管道? The instinctive answer might be yes – but that will not always be right. A recent decision of the Scottish Court of Session demonstrates that it is … 继续阅读

服务条款更改:是仅为一个客户工作的雇员吗?“有组织的员工分组”?

在Seawell Ltd诉Ceva Freight(UK)Ltd以及另一个UKEATS / 0034/11中,就业上诉法庭(“ EAT”)裁定,将100%的时间花在为单个客户工作的员工不是“有组织的就《 2006年企业转让(保护员工)条例》(“ 管道”)第3(3)(a)(i)条而言。因此… 继续阅读

Service provision changes: Relocation because of 管道 transfer was a substantial change to employees’ material detriment

在Abellio London Ltd(以前的Travel London Ltd)诉Musse等UKEAT 0283/11和0631/11中,就业上诉法庭(“ EAT”)裁定伦敦市中心六英里的搬迁导致雇员不得不旅行更改服务条款后,需要多花一到两个小时才能上班… 继续阅读

UK 管道: No service provision change where client changes identity

A service provision change does not occur under 管道 where there is a change in the client 上 whose behalf the services are being carried out. This is the conclusion of the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Hunter v McCarrick, the first EAT decision to rule 上 this issue. The decision does not come … 继续阅读

UK: 管道 and post-transfer harmonisation of terms to improve productivity not connected to transfer

This post was also written by Danny Bloom.  In Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v Dance and Others, a case concerning a 管道 transfer, the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a decision to ‘harmonise’ the incoming employees’ terms with existing employees could have been legitimately made to improve productivity, so that subsequent dismissals based upon the … 继续阅读

Interpreting 管道 –最新情况的更新

The past 18 months has seen a significant number of 管道 related cases. The following is a summary of some of the key decisions. The meaning of the term `activities’ (Service Provision Change) A 管道 transfer will occur when there is a ‘service provision change’. In a first-generation outsourcing, where a client outsources an activity to a … 继续阅读

Effect of 管道 上 Collective Agreements

在Parkwood Leisure Ltd诉Alemo-Herron等人一案中,上诉法院已审查了《 1981年企业转让(保护就业)条例》(TUPE 1981)第5条和第6条对集体协议的影响。 法院裁定,在合同中规定加薪的权利是… 继续阅读

管道 and Constructive Dismissal

In an important decision concerning 管道 transfers, the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given guidance in the case of Tapere v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust 上, first, the interpretation of mobility clauses in the context of a 管道 transfer and, secondly, 上 Reg 4(9) 管道, which allows a transferred employee to treat themselves … 继续阅读

管道 and 资不抵债 Proceedings

 在Oakland v Wellswood(Yorkshire)Ltd案中,就业上诉法庭(EAT)裁定,当企业经营中的雇员无法在2006年《企业转让(保护就业)条例》(TUPE)下为雇员提供保护。他受雇的业务已转移并继续作为… 继续阅读

Liability for equal pay claims 上 管道 transfer

 Sodexo Ltd诉(1)Gutridge等人(2)North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust案视为受让人’s liability for equal pay claims made by transferred employees following a 管道 transfer. In this case, the 就业机会Appeal Tribunal (EAT) holds that following a 管道 transfer, claims for equal pay relating to discrimination … 继续阅读

EAT gives guidance 上 how 管道 applies to service provision changes

在Kimberley Group Housing Ltd诉Hambley and ors and Angel Services(UK)Ltd诉Hambley and ors一案中,就业上诉法庭(EAT)推翻了一个就业法庭’裁定,如果一项服务提供合同是由一家公司执行并由两家公司接管的,则应将转移雇员的责任分摊… 继续阅读
LexBlog