EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Dismissal/automatically unfair dismissal
REDUNDANCY – Definition
Within the Xerox group of companies the work of a Finance Accounting Team was transferred from a UK company in Wakefield to a Philippines company and then taken offshore to Manila. It was agreed that there was a TUPE transfer. The Claimant stated that he wished to relocate to the Philippines on UK terms and conditions. The Respondent dismissed him for redundancy, stating that he was employed to work in Wakefield and that it was prepared to transfer him only on local terms and conditions. The Employment Judge found that there was a variation of his contract of employment by which he was entitled to work in the Philippines on UK terms and conditions; and that he was not redundant.
Appeal allowed. On the Employment Judge’s own findings there had been no variation of the contract; and her reasons for finding that the Claimant was not redundant had failed to apply the statutory wording in section 139(1)(b)(ii) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Comments also on the importance of addressing regulation 7 of TUPE 2006 in a case of this kind.
Judges:
Richardson HHJ
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0121 – 16 – 2407
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 139(1)(b)(ii), Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595002
