The claimants had had their employments transferred to another body under TUPE. They complained that their pension rights had been discriminatory. The employer appealed a finding that their claim had not been out of time.
Held: The effect of the Regulations was to transfer all employment rights unchanged save only the pension obligations. The pension rights were left were excepted by Reg 7 from the statutory fiction that the new employer had always been the employer. From the date of the transfer no new rights could be acquired as against the former employer, but any possible cause of action in respect of the untransferred pension rights remained. Accordingly the time for the running of any claim was from the date of the transfer. The action had not been begun within six months of that date and was out of time.
Judges:
Pill LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ and Laddie J
Citations:
Times 27-Oct-2004
Statutes:
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794), Equal Pay Act 1970
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others EAT 3-Nov-2003
EAT Judge McMullen QC adopted a limited view of the scope of the new principle of stable employment set out at the ECJ and HL. He thought it was intended ‘to rescue employees who do not have a permanent job’; and . .
See Also – Fletcher and others and Preston and others v Midland Bank Plc and Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust Secretary of State for Health and others EAT 24-Jun-1996
EAT Equal Pay Act – Addendum to principal judgment. Part timers’ claims for membership of pension schemes only made out of time.
EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic). . .
See Also – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
See Also – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare Trust Secretary of State for Health CA 13-Feb-1997
. .
See Also – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc ECJ 16-May-2000
ECJ Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Membership of an occupational pension scheme – Part-time workers – Exclusion – National procedural rules – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of equivalence. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Limitation
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.219088