This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

LPC Law Notes Employment Law Notes

Tupe Model Answer Notes

Updated Tupe Model Answer Notes

Employment Law Notes

Employment Law

Approximately 388 pages

A collection of the best LPC Employment notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (a former Oxford law graduate) could find in 2014 after combing through seventeen LPC samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Employment Law notes available in the UK this year. This collection of notes is full...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Employment Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

IS THERE A RELEVANT TRANSFER?

  • Business transfer Reg 3(1)(a):

    • Two limb test:

      • Is there an economic entity comprising of an organised group of resources?

        • This is a question of fact for the Tribunal who must apply the Cheeseman factors:

        • Consider whether the business has its own workforce, premises, assets, equipment, customer base, goodwill etc.

        • Apply briefly

      • Has that entity transferred?

        • Spijkers states that the decisive criterion is whether the entity retains its identity post-transfer; 7 factors in deciding this (should be considered in conjunction):

  1. The type of undertaking or business – is the business labour intensive or dependent on its assets? E.g. window fitting would be labour intensive as a lot of importance is attributed to the skills of the workforce

  2. The transfer of tangible assets – have a significant amount of assets transferred?

  3. The value of intangible assets (goodwill) – goodwill, skills and experience of workers

  4. Whether the majority of staff are being taken by the new employer – ECM v Cox states that it is not fundamental that the majority of staff transfer – it must however be a significant number

  5. The transfer of the circle of customers – is customer list transferred?

  6. The degree of similarity between activities before and after the transfer – is similar business being carried on?

  7. The duration of any interruptions in those activities – is the interruption minimal?

  • Service provision change:

    • Three types:

      • Contracting out Reg 3(1)(b)(i) – Where activities cease to be carried out in-house and an outside contractor comes in to carry out those activities

      • Second generation contracting Reg 3(1)(b)(ii) – Where a contractor is carrying out activities and the organisation changes the provider of those activities to a different contractor

      • Contracting in-house Reg 3(1)(b)(iii) – Where a contractor is carrying out activities and the organisation decided to run such activities in-house

    • Pre-conditions which must be satisfied:

      • Reg 3(3)(a)(i) – Immediately before the service change there is an organised group of employees whose principal purpose is to carry out the activities

      • Reg 3(3)(a)(ii) – Client intends that following the service change, the activities will be carried out by the transferee (not a single specific task or short term duration)

      • Reg 3(3)(b) – Activities do not consist mainly of the supply of goods; the service element must be predominant (Pannu and Others v Geo W King and Others)

  • If there is a relevant transfer, TUPE applies
Use the flowcharts on pages 259 and 260 of the book in conjunction with this example
EXAMPLE 1 – TRANSFEREE HAS ASKED TRANSFEROR TO DISMISS AN EMPLOYEE AS HE IS SURPLUS TO THEIR NEEDS – SO DISMISSAL BEFORE TRANSFER WITH NO ETO REASON

Scenario: Keith Mayer is 45 and had worked for Walker’s Glass for 15 years as a supervisor. He was earning 480 per week gross, 320 per week net. Keith was dismissed by Walker’s Glass before PFL took over the business. PFL has asked Walker’s Glass to dismiss Keith as he was surplus to requirements. Keith was given 4 weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. All the employees at Walker’s Glass were entitled to statutory minimum notice.

  1. Was there a relevant transfer? – See overleaf

  2. Effect of relevant transfer – The dismissal is effective (Reg 4) but liability for the claim may transfer to the Transferee (PFL) under Reg 4(3)

  3. Unfair dismissal eligibility – 1...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Employment Law Notes.

More Employment Law Samples