Tupe Compromise Agreement

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that in 2006, in the event of business transfer (employment protection), “TUPE” the existence of a transaction agreement with an employer does not automatically prevent the worker from asserting rights against other parties, real or potential. Transaction agreements can be used to cover many other rights that are not specifically related to labour law, such as contracts. There are certain labour rights that workers can only give up if an agreement is reached in the right format. Essentially, these are either negotiated agreements with COT3 agreements or “transaction agreements” that must meet the following requirements. (b) the agreement must relate to a particular procedure, an effect of TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 18 is therefore that any provision of an agreement (whether or not that agreement is an employment contract) is not concluded, so that the agreement can be concluded during employment or after the termination of employment. For a negotiated financial sum, the worker waives the right to take action in the labour court or in court. Compromise agreements are increasingly being used by employers to prevent future workplace rights against them. A transfer of TUPE often affects more than one employer, especially in an SPC scenario. In addition, the seller and the purchaser are jointly and repeatedly required to inform and consult on the proposed transfer. This case shows how important it is to ensure that all potential parties to a TUPE transfer accept a transaction contract if the purpose of that agreement is to settle potential claims against more than one party. The EAT found that the ET judge had concluded in his judgment: “If there is a transfer, then the responsibility of the ceding and the ceding is in solidarity.” However, under TUPE Regulation 4, liability for unlawful and abusive dismissal would be transferred to the new owner (ceding) and he would be held solely responsible.

There can be no liability for joint and several dismissal, which is why the judge erred in his action.

Posted in Uncategorized