Blog Layout

What's in a Name? TUPE and Changes to the Contract of Employment


TUPE Changes to Contract

What does TUPE mean?


TUPE is short for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. A transfer can mean acquiring, buying, leasing, merging or selling. An undertaking is a business, company, charity, organisation or service. Protection means the protection of the employment rights. Employees are those individuals employed by the undertaking that has been acquired. 


TUPE and a Change of Contract


An interesting case recently came before the Workplace Relations Commission which examined the expectation employees have when the employee was subject to a transfer of undertaking in the course of their employment. In this case (ADJ00028128), the employee was employed as a “ramp agent” with effect from March 2011. He alleged that his employer, the respondent, owed him certain contractual entitlements. In particular, the employee argued that his employer’s calculation of his accrued annual leave entitlements was incorrect and his normal hours of work had been reduced. The employee further submitted that he should have received a new contract for the transfer from one employer to another.


The employer countered that the complainant employee had received an agreed extensive contractual documentation at the outset of his employment, prior to the transfer. They submitted that those terms were compliant with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.


TUPE and Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994


The Adjudication Officer noted that Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, provides that an employee must receive written terms of employment, signed by the employer, shortly after the commencement of their employment. In this regard, the Workplace Relations Commission noted that the employee did receive extensive written terms of employment in advance of his original commencement date. The Workplace Relations Commission further noted that, when the employee was asked what aspects of those terms were deficient for the purposes of the Act, he stated that the employee did not adhere to the terms therein but failed to give specific examples. 


TUPE and Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994


Notwithstanding this failure, the Workplace Relations Commission noted that the employee was subject to a transfer of undertaking in the course of employment and did not receive a new contract from his “new employers”. In this regard, the Workplace Relations Commission noted that Section 5 of the Act provides that, when one of the terms of employment changes, an employee should be notified in writing of that change within one month.


That being the case, while a transfer of undertaking would not require the issuance of a new contract of employment as asserted by the employee, the Workplace Relations Commission recognised that the name of the employer should have changed. 


No evidence was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission demonstrating that this change was notified to the employee at the relevant time. 


Further Information


For further information, please contact the author of this article, Barry Crushell.

Share

Remote  work laws in Ireland
by RG343171 16 Aug, 2024
The case of Aline Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600) examines the obligations employers have, under Irish law, when a request for remote work is made by an employee. As the law in Ireland currently stands, there is no right to remote work per se. This may be overcome when an individual has been guaranteed remote work in their contract of employment or remote work has been determined to constitute a reasonable accommodation in accordance with relevant employment legislation, where applicable. However, none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act
09 Aug, 2024
The case of Dean Hart v Komfort Kare (ADJ00051923) examines the circumstances under which a request for time off, by a parent, from their employer, must be given due consideration. Dean Hart (the Complainant) brought a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 against Komfort Kare (the Respondent) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging that they denied him the right to take force majeure despite extenuating circumstances.
Constructive Dismissal and Sexual Harassment
31 Jul, 2024
The case of Care Worker v Costern Unlimited Company (ADJ00046268) examines the circumstances under which it will be deemed reasonable for an employee to resign and bring a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal on foot of a failure of their employer to properly investigate their complaints.
Payment of notice pay after probation
06 Jun, 2024
The case of Eric Bentley v Carcharger EV Limited (ADJ00050468) examines the circumstances under which an employee will be entitled to a payment in lieu of notice if dismissed during their probationary period. This is a very interesting case, as it was brought under the payment of wages provisions, but decided upon under notice legislation.
Interview discrimination
05 Jun, 2024
The case of A Job Applicant v A Public Body (ADJ00049321) examines the burden of proof in discrimination claims, particularly when discrimination is being claimed at the interview stage.
The Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Claims in Ireland
03 Jun, 2024
The case of Mark Lowry v JJ Fleming and Company Limited (ADJ00036677) examines the burden of proof issues that often arise in constructive dismissal claims. Uniquely, the employer offered no substantive evidence to support their case, yet won, highlighting the very difficult hurdles an employee often faces in bringing an unfair dismissal claim following their resignation.
Show More
Share by: