Does TUPE apply if a majority shareholder
takes over the activities of a subsidiary which
has been wound up?
Yes, according to the ECJ in the case of Ferreira
da Silva e Brito and others v Estado Portugues.
Background
TAP was the majority shareholder of Air Atlantis
which provided a number of charter flights. Air
Atlantis was wound up after the winding up had
been completed, TAP started to operate some
of the routes that Air Atlantis had previously
operated using the aircraft, offices, equipment
and employees of Air Atlantis.
A number of employees had been dismissed
due to redundancy when Air Atlantis had been
wound up, and they brought a claim that they
should have transferred to TAP and they sought
compensation.
Decision of the CJEU
This was a transfer of an undertaking. The key
point was that the entity had kept its identity
- TAP had taken over routes, aircraft, activities
and employees. Although they had been
integrated into TAP’s activities, there was a clear
link between the assets and employees and
the activities that they had carried out whilst
working for Air Atlantis.
How does this affect your business?
In a situation where the business, or part of the
business being taken over, has been wound up
do not presume that a transfer situation will not
arise. It is essential to look at the nature of the
business before the winding up and to compare
this to the business that remains. In some
cases it is possible to differentiate between
asset reliant undertakings and labour intensive
ones. In this case, the transfer of key assets (the
airplanes) was decisive.
TUPE: Do employees who are temporarily laid
off work at the time of a service provision
change transfer to the subsequent contractor?
The EAT held that they might in the case of In
Inex Home Improvements Ltd v Hodgkins.
Background
There must be an ‘organised grouping of
employees’ in a transfer situation. If, for
example, there is a change of service provider
but there is not an organised group of
employees working on that service, no-one will
transfer.
What happens if there has been a temporary
lay-off situation?
Here a group of employees worked for Inex on a
contract referred to as the ‘Sandwell’ contract.
The work under this contract was released in
a series of tranches. There was a gap between
one tranche of work being completed and
the next being released and, as a result, the
employees were temporarily laid off.
It was then decided that the next tranche of
work would not be given to Inex but to Localrun,
another provider. The employees argued that
they should transfer to Localrun, but it disagreed
because they had been laid off. It argued that
they were not part of the organised grouping of
employees immediately before the transfer.
Decision
The EAT made it clear that a temporary
absence from work, or a temporary cessation
of the relevant activities does not, in itself,
deprive employees who had been involved
in the relevant activities of their status as an
organised grouping of employees.
How does this affect your business?
This case was remitted back to the Tribunal
to determine if these employees were an
organised group immediately before the
transfer. It is likely that the Tribunal will find that
they were.
The key question will be to determine if the
workers who have been laid off were an
organised group who were assigned to the part
of the business being transferred. If they are
then they will transfer to the new employer. It
is probably safer to assume that workers who
are temporarily laid off and who worked on
the transferring contract, will transfer and treat
them in the same way as those who are on
holiday or ill at the time of the transfer.
Dismissal: Is it fair to dismiss a disabled
employee for refusing to follow a return to
work plan?
The EAT said that it was fair on the facts in the
case of Rochford v WNS Global Services (UK) Ltd
and others.
Background
The Claimant was a senior manager who
suffered from a disabling back condition. He
was absent from work from February 2012
on generous sick pay (which lasted until his
dismissal). Some months later his position was
medically assessed, leading to the conclusion
that there should be a phased return to work.
The employer decided that he should return
to restricted duties which formed part of those
he was contractually obliged to undertake. He
refused to do so, considering that this was a
demotion.
The employer did not make it clear that the
long term aim was for the employee to return
to his previous role. Despite a number of
discussions, the employee continued to refuse
and was warned that he would be dismissed if
he did not agree. He was eventually dismissed
and brought claims for disability discrimination,
unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
Decision
The Tribunal upheld some elements of the
discrimination claim (but not those linked to the
dismissal) and also found that the dismissal was
substantively fair but procedurally unfair. The
wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.
Following an appeal, the EAT agreed with
the Tribunal’s conclusions. The reason for
Mr Rochford’s dismissal was because of his
conduct – not his disability. He had refused
to do any work, despite having been warned
about the consequences of doing so. His
conduct amounted to gross misconduct and his
employer was entitled to dismiss him without
notice.
The EAT did note that if the employee thought
that the employer was acting unreasonably, he
could have resigned and claimed constructive
dismissal or worked under protest. To simply
refuse to do any work was not acceptable.
How does this affect your business?
The case demonstrates that the fact that there
has been an element of unlawful discrimination
does not mean that any ultimate dismissal
must be unfair (but often will be).
It is good practice, when an employee is
returning from a long term absence to try to
agree a return to work plan to avoid these types
of problems. However, as long as the employee
is medically fit to undertake the work set out
in a return to work plan, you can discipline and
ultimately dismiss if the employee refuses to
do so.
Dismissal: Can a trade union representative be
dismissed whilst participating in union activity
for a non-union related reason?
The EAT found that the employer had fairly
dismissed an employee in Azam v Ofqual because the employee had been dismissed for
misconduct and not because she was a union
representative.
Background
Ms Azam was the employee union
representative (and later the Branch Chair)
of the PCS union which was recognised by
the employer. She had raised a number of
grievances on behalf of members (some of
which remained unresolved).
The employer wished to make significant
changes to its pay and grading arrangements
and meetings took place with Ms Azam in
her capacity as PCP Branch Chair. During
those discussions, the employer disclosed a
spreadsheet detailing each of the roles in
the organisation together with the old and
proposed new grades. That information was
disclosed to her on the strict condition that it
was confidential and should not be disclosed to
anyone else, or used for other purposes.
Despite this, Ms Azam emailed copies of
the spreadsheet to branch members. She
attempted to avoid suspicion by referencing
her email with a neutral title. Her employers
only became aware that she had done so
when they received a complaint by another
member of staff that sensitive information had
been disclosed to PCS colleagues. Following an
investigation, Ms Azam was dismissed for gross
misconduct.
She brought a claim arguing that her dismissal
was automatically unfair because the real
reason for the dismissal was her trade union
activities.
Decision
Her claim was unsuccessful. It was held that
the real reason for her dismissal was because
she had sent out confidential information
and not because of her role as a trade union
representative.
How does this affect your business?
Many employers tread carefully in trade union
matters as unionised workplaces are often quick
to defend their members. Here staff went on
strike to protest against Ms Azam’s dismissal
(the union was unaware that she had breached
confidentiality).
If you can prove that a decision to dismiss a
union member was genuinely because they
committed an act of gross misconduct, the
dismissal will be fair.
Dismissing an employee because of their trade
union activities will be automatically unfair,
meaning that there is no requirement for the
employee to have a minimum period of service
to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. In addition,
dismissal for this reason will attract a minimum
basic award of £5,807.
Can an employee claim victimisation by
association?
The Tribunal agreed that a claim for associative
victimisation is possible (and this aspect of the
decision was not appealed) in Thompson v
London Central Bus.
Law
Victimisation occurs when an employee is
treated less favourably because they have
carried out a ‘protected act’. A protected act
is when an employee has previously made
a complaint or claim of discrimination, or
supported someone who has made such a
claim.
Background
Mr Thompson was a bus driver who said he had
overheard a conversation in which it had been
alleged that management had, some 20 years
earlier, conducted a campaign to get rid of
certain employees who had made allegations of
racism against management.
He said that he had recently repeated the
conversation to a manager who, shortly
afterwards instigated disciplinary proceedings
against him which had resulted in his dismissal.
Following a successful appeal, this sanction was
replaced with conditional re-instatement.
Mr Thompson said that he was associated
with the protected acts (the allegations of
racism) because he had heard about them
and therefore had knowledge and that this,
coupled with the timing of events, established
a causal link. In response, the Respondent
produced a clear paper trail demonstrating that
the disciplinary action was attributable to Mr
Thompson’s contravention and abuse of the
health and safety requirements concerning the
wearing of hi-visibility jackets.
Decision
The Employment Tribunal decided that the
Equality Act 2010 does protect employees
against associative victimisation but, in this
case, it found that the association between the
employee and those who had carried out the
protected acts was too weak or ‘of the wrong
sort’ for a claim of associative discrimination
to be successful and it therefore struck out the
claim.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the
Tribunal’s reasons for rejecting the case were
wrong. The appropriate test was whether the
employer subjected an individual to a detriment
by reason of the protected acts of others. It
stated that there is no requirement for there to
be any particular form of association.
How does this affect your business?
This decision suggests a significant shift in the
law and a willingness to permit associative
discrimination claims to be brought outside of
direct discrimination claims (which have been
permitted for some time).
If a member of staff (subject to a disciplinary
process) alleges that he/she is being subjected
to a disciplinary process/sanction because
of their previous support for a colleague’s
discrimination claim/complaint, you should
suspend the disciplinary process and investigate
before deciding how to proceed. Do not assume
that the employee is making this up (he/
she might be but you won’t know unless you
investigate), or that the events took place a long
time ago and are therefore irrelevant.
Is an issue which affects only four employees
in the public interest (and the disclosure
protected by whistle-blowing legislation)?
Possibly, according to the EAT in Underwood v
Wincanton Plc.
Facts
Mr Underwood and three of his colleagues
made a complaint about the way that overtime
was being allocated in their organisation. This
complaint was addressed but Mr Underwood
was dismissed. He argued that he had been
dismissed for making a protected disclosure,
but the employer argued that this situation
could not be a protected disclosure because
the issue relating to overtime only related to a
small number of employees and could not, in
any event, be an issue that was in the ‘public
interest’.
Decision
The EAT said that the case had to go back to
the Tribunal to reconsider in the light of the
Chestertons case which made it clear that a
relatively limited number of work colleagues
could potentially constitute the public for these
purposes.
How does this affect your business?
Although the public interest bar is not set very
high, it is extremely unlikely that Mr Underwood
will succeed with his case. It is difficult to
see how three individuals can constitute the
“public”, or in this case, whether Mr Underwood
had any reasonable belief that the public really
needed to know how his overtime arrangements
were determined.
However, it is probably safer to treat a
complaint that refers (even vaguely) to other
people within the organisation, and might
on a generous interpretation be a protected
disclosure, in accordance with your whistleblowing
policy.
The best defence to any genuine whistleblowing
claim is to demonstrate that the reason
you made a decision about the employee was
completely unrelated to anything they might
have told you.
Winter 2016
Legislation tracker - What does 2016 have in store?
Case tracker - What does 2016 have in store?
News in brief
Focus on HR - How not to handle a disciplinary process
Do you need to treat the time your workforce spend travelling to and from work as “working time”?
Case law update
Download Winter 2016 issue (PDF)
For general enquiries
0808 291 3524
Or we can call you back at a time of your choice
Phone lines are open 24/7, 365 days a year