Source: http://nottingham-solicitors.eu/
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 06:41:29
Document Index: 785570398

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 3']

Fixed fee conveyancing, probate and divorce lawyers.
Nottingham Solicitors McIntosh Fleming & Co specialise in providing low cost legal services to Nottingham residents and businesses. McIntosh Fleming provide cheap fixed price legal services to Nottingham in the areas of conveyancing, probate and divorce. Few other Nottingham solicitors act for a guaranteed fixed fee preferring instead to charge by the hour. We say that is like asking how long a piece of string is. If you want a guaranteed and fixed low price for your legal work then look no further. Just call us on (0800) 1712215 or e-mail gary@Nottingham-solicitors.co.uk.
Heartland (Midlands) Ltd v Marcroft
Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Transfer of contract of employment – Defendant employed by company – Defendant submitting notice of resignation – transferring business to claimant – Defendant not consulted about transfer to claimant – Claimant commencing proceedings against defendant alleging breach of contract – Judge finding relevant transfer and that defendant employed by transferor – Whether judge correctly interpreting and giving proper consideration to relevant regulations – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246.
Employment – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct in finding that the contract of employment of the defendant with one company was transferred to the claimant, and that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE) applied to the transfer of PMI’s commercial indemnity undertaking to the claimant and to the defendant’s contract of employment.
Barke and others v OTG and other appeals
Employment – Unfair dismissal – Administration – Transfer of undertakings – Companies in administration – Termination of employment following commencement of administration proceedings – Employees bringing proceedings for unfair dismissal and redundancy – Whether administration proceedings constituting ‘bankruptcy or analogous proceedings’ disapplying requirement for transfer of undertakings to another company – Insolvency Act 1986, Sch B1 –Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, regs 4, 8.
Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that administration proceedings under Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 did not constitute ‘bankruptcy or analogous proceedings … instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’ within the meaning of reg 8(7) of theTransfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
CLECE SA v Valor
European Union – Reference to European Court – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding employees’ rights – Concept of ‘transfer’ – Cleaning carried out directly by municipal authority with recruitment of new staff – Council Directive (EC) 2001/23, art 1(1)(a) and (b)
European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that, on the facts of the instant case, art 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event oftransfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses) did not apply to a situation in which a municipal authority which had contracted out the cleaning of its premises to a private company decided to terminate its contract with that company and to undertake the cleaning of those premises itself by hiring new staff for that purpose.
Zaman and others v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (trading as Dorlux Beds UK)
Employment – Compensation – Award – Employees alleging breach by first respondent of information and consultation obligations – Employment tribunal upholding allegations and making awards of compensation – Five employees claiming not to have been paid compensation awarded – Tribunal making awards for compensation in their favour – Tribunal holding cap on ‘a week’s pay’ applying to certain awards for compensation – Whether tribunal erring – Employment Rights Act 1996, s 227 – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 15
Employment – Compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the cap on ‘a week’s pay’ under s 227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to awards for compensation under reg 15(8) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, for breach of the information and consultation obligations.
Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP) v Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción and others
European Union – Employment – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Employee representatives – Autonomy of entity transferred – Council Directive (EC) 2001/23, art 6(1).
European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings concerned an action involving the applicant trade union, the municipal authority of a town and others in respect of the refusal of the authority to recognise as lawfully appointed employee representatives those persons elected to carry out that function in various undertakings responsible for outsourced public services which were transferred to that municipal authority, the European Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 (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).
The judgment is available at: C-151/09
The underlying proceedings concerned an action involving the applicant trade union, the municipal authority of a town and others in respect of the refusal of the authority to recognise as lawfully appointed employee representatives those persons elected to carry out that function in various undertakings responsible for outsourced public services which were transferred to that municipal authority. The national court stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union a question for preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 (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).
Whitney v Monster Worldwide Ltd
Pension – Pension scheme – Company pension scheme – Claimant belonging to defendant employer’s pension plan with entitlement to ‘no detriment guarantee’ (NDG) – Scheme subsequently wound up and replaced by money purchase scheme – Claimant receiving less pension benefits under purchase scheme than under pension plan – Claimant seeking payment of shortfall pursuant to NDG – Whether agreement to NDG legally enforceable between claimant and defendant’s predecessor – Whether NDG binding on defendant.
Pension – Pension scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant’s appeal in respect of the existence of a contractual entitlement of the claimant as against the defendant to a pension equivalent to that which he would have received from his previous employers, and dismissed the claimant’s cross-appeal in relation to annual increments to reflect the annual increase in the Retail Price Index.
European Union – Employment – Social policy – Transfer of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Group of companies in which staff employed by ‘employer’ company and assigned on permanent basis to operating company – Transfer of operating company – Council Directive (EC) 2001/23.
European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings concerning a transfer of undertakings, the European Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling in respect of the interpretation of art 3(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, business or parts of undertakings of businesses.
Jones v Beardmore
Employment – Dismissal – Unfair dismissal – Respondent running farm in partnership with his father – Employee working for partnership as egg picker – Egg production at farm reduced and employee working for respondent alone at public house and brewery – Employee becoming ill with stress – Respondent unable to make sickness payments and employee dismissed – Employee claiming unfair dismissal – Tribunal holding employee ‘economic entity’ whose employment transferred – Whether tribunal erring – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246.
Employment – Dismissal. The Employment appeal tribunal held that as a matter of law the employee had failed to show that there was any continuity of employment and she lacked sufficient qualifying employment to enable her to bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Failure to consult – Appellant giving limited information to employees about impending transfer – Appellant failing to elect appropriate representatives – Employment tribunal holding appellant failing to consult appropriate representatives – Appellant ordered to pay employees 13 weeks pay as compensation – Whether tribunal erring – Whether tranferee jointly liable – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, ss 13, 15.
Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in circumstances where there was a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/24, the Employment Tribunal had erred in its award of compensation and had been obliged to find the transferee jointly and severally liable with the transferor.
Wood v Caledon Social Club Ltd and another
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – First respondent employer running club area of community centre with relevant premises licence for sale of alcohol under lease from second respondent – Claimant employee employed by first respondent as bar steward – Local authority subsequently withdrawing premises licence certificate – Employer surrendering lease to second respondent and dismissing employee – Second respondent succeeding in obtaining premises licence certificate after surrender of lease by employer – Whether relevant transfer occurring – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 3(1)(a).
Employment – Continuity. The employee’s appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that the relevant transfer of undertakings required for the purposes of s 3(1)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, had not taken place was allowed on the basis that in the circumstances, for the purposes of the provision in question, the relevant transfer had taken place from the first respondent employer to the second respondent at the transfer date albeit that there had been a temporary cessation of operation at that date.
gary@nottingham-solicitors.net.
© 2013 Nottingham Solicitors