Skip to main content

TUPE is the key

TUPE (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations) is always a key issue in terms of any corporate rescue.

When a business is sold from one person to another then TUPE generally applies. This has the effect of transferring some liabilities from one organisation to another.

I have not been able as yet to clarify the position as to exactly which liabilities transfer through administration.

My understanding is that the liabilities for redundancy payments rest with the administrator if redundancies are made during administration. That is a reason why normally a lot of redundancies occur during administration.

There are press reports indicating that other liabilities transfer. This may mean that the only way forward that anyone will finance is to have completely new businesses set up and employ new staff (which are, of course, likely [but not guaranteed] to be people who were made redundant). It does appear that TUPE scuppered the SAIC possibility.

If the business is not bought as a "going concern" then TUPE does not apply.

This press release from PWC explains the situation.
It has been represented inaccurately in various places.

The key phrase is:
"We have received a copy letter from SAIC early this morning which communicates to the DTi that they are not willing to acquire either the whole or part of the business on a going concern basis. "

In the press conference they also said they would not even work with a third party.

Although Intellectual Property Rights have been sold to SAIC they also need the people who know how to use the IPR. That also leaves an opportunity open.

Comments

Anoneumouse said…
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (plus copious amendments) actually implement The European Union Directive 77/187/EEC relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses., known as the “Acquired Rights Directive”. Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998

As EU law, it is beyond the scope of our Parliament – yet another example of "hidden Europe".

and the Liberal and Labour Parties want to sign up to the EU constitution (Shame, shame)
john said…
I suppose the EU Directive went beyond the speed of light and back in time from 1998 to 1981.

In any event there is flexibility often completely ignored by the UK drafters of SIs.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…