The claimants worked for Rotaprint when it went into receivership in 1988, and then for the receiver before being transferred to Pan Graphics. Statutory redundany payments were made on the receivership of Rotaprint. The claimants sought further redundancy payment on the insolvency of Rotaprint. The Secretary now appealed the decision of the EAT that payments should be calculated by reference to te period of employment also with Rotaprint.
Held: Payments from the redundancy fund operated as equivalent to a redundancy and so the payment created a break in service for the employees receiving the payment. A subsequent redundancy payment was to be calculated from the date of the redundancy. The earlier payment had arisen on a transfer of an undertaking. Although those regulations operated to preserve employment rights, they could not create continuity where there was an interruption, even though there was now doubt about the correctness of the first payment.
Judges:
Beldam LJ, Chadwick LJ, Robert Walker LJ
Citations:
Times 05-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 143
Links:
Statutes:
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794), Employment Rights Act 1996
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – M Lassman and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another EAT 27-Nov-1998
The appellants challenged the calculation of their length of service as decided by the tribunal which calculation then governed the calculation of their redundancy payments payable by the respondents on the insolvency of their former employer. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Employment v Spence CA 1986
The employers went into receivership in November 1983. A number of the employees were made redundant but the receiver hoped to carry on with the remaining workforce until February. However, a major customer threatened to withdraw its custom unless . .
Cited – Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) CA 1972
Railway employees had been instructed by their unions to ‘work to rule’ and more specifically to ban overtime, Sunday and rest day working. ‘Working to rule’ meant giving an unreasonably literal construction to certain requirements of the railway . .
Cited – Rowan v Machinery Installations (South Wales) Ltd EAT 1981
The claimant was made redundant. He was given statutory redundancy pay, but continued from week to week for two years more. He was again made redundant but calculated only from the earlier date.
Held: Although paragraph 12 of Schedule 13 of . .
Cited – Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd SCS 1988
(Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session) Twelve applicants worked for an employer who went into insolvent receivership. The receivers agreed to sell the business assets. An hour before completion the workers were dismissed and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82956
