Skip to main content

Insight article

June 29, 2020

How TUPE protects when employees transfer

A property management company ran into a brick wall when they tried to boost their benefits package before transferring to a new employer under the TUPE employment protection regulations.

TUPE (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) is designed to protect jobs and safeguard contractual terms for employees when a business transfers to new ownership or a contract is placed with a new service provider. While it has been clear that the new employer must not change terms to disadvantage an employee, the Employment Tribunal has ruled that changes made solely for the transfer should not benefit an employee either.

The case involved Lancer Property Asset Management, which provided estate management services to Berkeley Square Estate, who decided to move to a new service provider. As a result, the directors of Lancer were to become employees of the new provider, Astrea Asset Management Ltd, under the TUPE regulations.

In preparing for the transfer, the directors decided to award themselves a salary increase and generous new terms for bonus and termination payments, together with a 24-month notice period. The new employer disputed the terms, sacking two of the directors for gross misconduct and refusing to pay the enhanced benefits to the other directors. The resulting dispute ended up at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), with the directors arguing that the TUPE regulation regarding pre-transfer variations was for situations where the change was detrimental to the employee.

Employment partner Karen Cole explains:

“TUPE is about ensuring fairness and continuity, so it’s no surprise that anything that makes an employee worse off would not be allowed but being better off hasn’t been tested in this way before.

The EAT said that all contract variations which are connected to a transfer are void, whether they are detrimental to the employee, and the objective of TUPE is to protect, not enhance. The EAT also highlighted that no legitimate commercial purpose could be demonstrated for the changes, meaning they infringed the general abuse principle of EU law and were unenforceable.

Contact Karen Cole today for further advice and information on TUPE, whether you’re an employer or an employee.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Anon, April 2025
    “Whistleblowing dismissal claim and settlement negotiations I can not speak highly enough of this firm and [Patrick Simpson], they were not only understanding of my case needs they also worked with the up most integrity and professionalism to e

  • Patrick, April 2025
    “We had a long process handled by Charlotte & James from RIAA Barker Gillette. Even though we were outside the UK Charlotte & James we’re always available and we developed a great working relationship with them.They gave sound advice,

  • Leann Paris, March 2025
    “From the beginning to the end, the support we have received throughout the case with all the staff members has been far more than we expected, we got kept up to date with every single matter, I have had stressful few years but Charlotte and he

  • C Smith, March 2025
    “As executor of a will it was a relief for a solicitor to act on my behalf as though no disputes it was still a lengthy and complex process. It was dealt with mostly by Charlotte B. who kept me informed at all times. She explained the process c

  • Marc, March 2025
    “RIAA Barker Gillette were engaged to handle a real estate transaction with unusual circumstances. As a non-UK resident unfamiliar with English conveyancing procedures, I felt completely satisfied with the depth of the information and explanati

Read more
Send this to a friend