1 / 22

INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS. PENSIONS AND TUPE Richard Arthur Thompsons Solicitors 24 February 2009. PARTICULAR PROBLEMS. Changes to terms and conditions; The Werhof case; Retention of Employment Model; Information and Consultation; and Pensions. CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

jill
Download Presentation

INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS PENSIONS AND TUPE Richard Arthur Thompsons Solicitors 24 February 2009

  2. PARTICULAR PROBLEMS • Changes to terms and conditions; • The Werhof case; • Retention of Employment Model; • Information and Consultation; and • Pensions.

  3. CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS • If the sole or principal reason for the variation is (1) the transfer itself or (2) a reason connected with the transfer that is not an ETO reason, the variation is void; • ETO reason “…..entailing changes in the workforce”; • Change in headcount or job description; • Variations permitted where the reason is connected with the transfer, and is an ETO reason; • Does that comply with the ARD?

  4. CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others: • two universities merged in August 2002; • In 2004, the merged universities terminated contracts and sought to harmonise terms and conditions; • Were the dismissals transfer-connected? • Was there an ETO reason?

  5. CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS ET: • dismissals were transfer-connected despite the two year gap between the transfer and the dismissals; and • No ETO reason because the reason was to harmonise (no change in the workforce). EAT agreed.

  6. CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS Power v Regent Security Services Ltd: • Pre-transfer contractual retirement age of 60; • Post-transfer, employer and employee agree to retirement age of 65; • Transferee sought to retire employee at 60; and • Transferee argued change to 65 was transfer-connected, no ETO, and therefore void. EAT: “…No reason why the employee should not hold the transferee to the new term…”.

  7. The Werhof Case • W’s rate of pay determined by collective agreement between trade union and employer’s federation; • Employment transfers; • Transferee not party to bargaining machinery; • Transferee concludes new agreement with Works Council; • Trade union concludes new agreement with employer’s federation; • W argues that his pay should be determined in accordance with the new agreement between the trade union and the employer’s federation.

  8. The Werhof case ECJ: • “Static” interpretation: • Only the agreement in force at the date of transfer transfers; • (Also employer’s rights under Article 10 ECHR); • W could not rely on the new agreement.

  9. The Werhof Case • Appears to undermine transfer of collectively agreed pay; • But, in Werhof, there were two separate agreements; • Entitlement to subsequent NJC awards should still transfer: • Hughes v Aramark; • Alemmo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd.

  10. The Retention of Employment Model • To allow staff who would otherwise transfer in PFI/PPP schemes to remain employed in the NHS; • Originally intended for non-supervisory staff in catering, cleaning, laundering, security and portering; • Advantages: job security and pensions; • Employee objects to transfer and enters secondment arrangement.

  11. The Retention of Employment Model The Celtec case: • Transfer of vocational training to TEC’s in 1990; • Civil servants continue to be employed by Department of Employment until 1993, working under secondment for TEC’s; • Became employees of TEC’s in 1993; • Q: What was the date of transfer of employment?

  12. The Retention of Employment Model Answer (House of Lords): • If employee not given option of transfer, but is instead offered opportunity of secondment, she hasn’t objected to the transfer of her own free will; • It follows that her employment transfers at the start of the secondment. Q: Does this cast doubt on the ROE Model?

  13. The Retention of Employment Model Answer: Probably not, provided that four conditions are satisfied: • Employee given free choice as to whether to transfer; • Employee freely decides not to transfer; • Employee objects to transferring (preferably in writing); and • Employee enters into new contract permitting secondment.

  14. The Retention of Employment Model • The Department of Health agrees that ROE survives Celtec; • Subsequent EAT decision in Capita Health Solutions v (1) BBC and (2) McLean can be distinguished.

  15. Information and Consultation • “Long enough before the transfer to enable consultation to take place…”; • Fact of transfer, date and reasons; • Legal, economic and social implications for affected employees; • “Measures” old employer envisages it will take; and • “Measures” old employer envisages new employer will take

  16. Information and Consultation • “Affected employees”-any employee who may be affected by the transfer, regardless of whether they actually transfer; • Election of employee representatives; • “Measures”: any changes to existing working practices or arrangements.

  17. Information and Consultation • Obligation to consult only where employer envisages taking “measures”; • Employer must consider union’s representations and reply to them; • With a view to reaching agreement; • Up to 13 weeks’ pay per affected employee;and • Award is punitive.

  18. Pensions: The Basics Past Service and Future Service: • No contractual right to future service benefits as pre-transfer; • Past Service: Pension Schemes Act 1993 and Preservation Regulations; • Future Service: Sections 257 and 258 Pensions Act 2008 and Transfer of Employment (Pension Protection) Regulations 2005; • Public Sector: Best Value Authorities Staff Transfers (Pensions) Direction 2007 and Cabinet Office Statement of Practice 2005.

  19. Pensions: Past Service PSA 1993 and Preservation Regulations apply to “early-leavers”: • Money purchase scheme: accrued value; • Final salary scheme: (i) <3 months: refund of contributions; (ii) >3 months, <2 years: refund of contributions or “cash transfer value”; and (iii) >2 years: deferred pension or “cash equivalent transfer value”.

  20. Pensions: Compulsory Transfers Can be forced upon active, deferred and pensioner members on reorganisation or business transfer where: • Transferor scheme trustees consent; and • Transferor scheme actuary certifies credits in transferee scheme as no less favourable (GN16 Certificate). (Actuarial Standards Board: only “exceptionally” will a transfer from a db to a dc scheme satisfy the Preservation Regulations).

  21. Pensions: Future Service Pensions Act 2004 and Transfer of Employment (Pension Protection) Regulations 2005: • DB scheme meeting defined standards; or • DC scheme (matching employer contributions up to 6% of pay); or • Stakeholder scheme (effectively a personal pension). Employer gets to choose which, regardless of transferor scheme.

  22. Pensions: Public Sector Transfers Pensions Direction 2007 and Cabinet Office Guidance 2005: • Future Service: contracting public authority must ensure that contract provides for “broadly comparable” pension; • GAD: in the opinion of a qualified actuary, no identifiable member will suffer material detriment; • DC scheme can not be broadly comparable with a DB scheme; • GAD Passport Scheme in local government discontinued; • Enforcement: Section 101 Local Government Act 2003; non-local government-more difficult.

More Related