The tribunal reviewed cases under the TUPE regulations. Having found: ‘There is no doubt that the transfer of the business from Mr Golding to Mr Patel was the reason, or was connected with the reason, for the employee’s dismissal. So the case prima facie falls within regulation 8(1).’
Held: ‘The ‘economic’ reasons apt to bring the case within paragraph (2) must, in our view, be reasons which relate to the conduct of the business. If the economic reasons were no more than a desire to obtain an enhanced price, or no more than a desire to achieve a sale, it would not be a reason which related to the conduct of the business. It would not in our judgment be an ‘economic’ reason for the purposes of paragraph (2).’ On the facts, the case fell within Regulation 8(1), because it had not been shown that there was an economic reason within Regulation 8(2). The reason put forward did not relate to the conduct of the business. It simply related to the desire of the transferor to sell the undertaking.
Judges:
Scott J
Citations:
[1987] ICR 631
Cited by:
Cited – Warner v Adnet Limited CA 26-Feb-1998
A dismissal of employees by administrative receivers just before the sale of a company as going concern was a redundancy outside the protection given by the TUPE provisions. ‘in view of the facts found by the tribunal about the appointment of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.214601