Search results

This paper aims to provide an examination of the position employees find themselves during corporate insolvencies. The paper examines employees' rights under insolvency procedures such as administration, company voluntary arrangements (CVA), administrative receivership, pre-packs and liquidation, to establish whether the rescue goal can be affected by employees' claims. Priorities in liquidation are also widely examined to establish the status of employees under this procedure and their entitlements.

Legal analysis.

The law offers more protection to employees than unsecured creditors. In comparison to unsecured creditors and even floating charge security holders, employment claims stand in a highly enviable position during insolvency.

The paper offers a wholesale assessment of the rights of employees during insolvency. There is a lacuna in research literature that addresses the issue of employment rights during insolvency.

Examines the employment law implications for charities considering merger. Considers the employment law problems that are involved in charity mergers and the different strategies that have been employed in practice to deal with them. Charities merging face particular problems, not only from the natural concerns of staff about their jobs post‐merger, but also because the law which protects employees when organisations merge is not clear. The application of the relevant legal principles may be particularly uncertain in the context of mergers between charities due to the variety in the legal forms of the merger, and in the employment practices adopted by charities. Illustrates these concerns with an empirical study of a number of charity mergers.

Discusses the transfer of undertakings in the UK, referring to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations of 1981, the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Acquired Rights Directive 1977. Provides the raison d’etre of the Acquired Rights Directive and outlines how it was implemented in the UK. Talks about the confusing jurisprudence of the European and British courts, mentioning the European Court of Justice’s challenges to the directive, the 1994 proposals, amended 1997 proposals, the Commission’s memorandum of 1997 and the UK government’s consultation papers. Describes how the European Directive is applied and interpreted in relation to the Acquired Rights Directive and transfer of undertakings. Outlines the regulations controlling compulsory competitive tendering. Points out the obligation to inform and consult on the transfer of an undertaking and how the directive is enforced if this fails to occur. Notes the effect a relevant transfer has on existing collective agreements and the legal implications of dismissing employees by reason of the relevant transfer. Looks at the European Commission’s proposal for a directive on safeguarding employees’ rights in the event of transfer and the implications that would have on UK business. Concludes that a new directive is needed, building on the 1977 Directive but ironing out its inconsistencies.

Reviews the question of whether the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1978 (TUPE) affect outsourcing and in particular how the parties might cope if TUPE applies. Concludes that, under current judicial interpretation of TUPE, it will most likely apply to typical outsourcing. Thus, parties would be well advised to take contractual protection against the effects of TUPE. Suggests that such protection would include warranties and indemnities together with the appointment of liabilities.

Examines the situation in the UK in some detail with regard to three aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union. Looks at the aims, together with an analysis and appraisal. Considers, first, information and consultation rights with regards to the transfer of undertakings and redundancies, followd by the right to collective action and, lastly, protection in the event of unjustifiable dismissal. Presents case law throughout as examples. Concludes that the UK has attempted to prevent social and economic rights for workers from being included in the final charter despite fierce opposition. Compares this view together with the UK suspicion of Europe against the views of the other member states.

The UK has in recent years seen considerable growth of facilities management (FM) outsourcing across a range of industries. This paper considers the legal problems and risks inherent in FM outsourcing. It also suggests ways to facilitate the transactional negotiating process and discusses the methods by which business and legal risks can be fairly apportioned (between the user and the provider), how to ensure good contract management and, importantly, managing risks on contract termination and exit. The paper is relevant to both users and providers in terms of best negotiating practice and risk management. From a legal perspective, both the UK (and the European Union) are more highly regulated jurisdictions for FM deals than are the US and Canadian markets, and this paper focuses on UK (and European) issues. Cross‐border legal issues are also considered.

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.

Under the European Union’s 1977 Acquired Rights Directive, workers transferred to another employer can expect the majority of their original terms and conditions of employment to be protected and changes made without consultation can constitute constructive unfair dismissal. Confusion over the application of the directive greatly affected the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering to the provision of local authority services in the UK. Many of the issues remain unresolved and will cause problems as compulsory competitive tendering is replaced by the duty on authorities to “achieve best value”. This article seeks to clarify the position for employers by reviewing the most recent case law from both British and European courts.

As a result of European and British Court changes, together with domestic legislation, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply to many instances where service contracts change hands. Facilities managers must be aware of when the regulations may apply, and take an active part in ensuring that competition is fair and realistic where they do apply. Suggests contract procedures should be amended to cover the provision of employee information, longer contract periods and indemnities for historical redundancy liabilities.

Compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) and market testing are central and controversial planks of government economic policy. Critics question the level of efficiency gains which flows from the process and point to the deterioration of workers′ terms and conditions of employment in the aftermath of contracting out exercises. Recent case law, in extending employment protection rights to workers caught up in contracting‐out exercises, may make CCT a much less attractive proposition to private contractors. Analyses recent developments and, in the context of the draft revised directive on business transfers, poses the question whether CCT is destined to become a failed economic experiment.