We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
TUPE related EAT rulings and mobility
getmore4less
Posts: 46,882 Forumite
A few previous threads where a TUPE has resulted in significant changes may be interested in this.
allthough mobility is the main issue the detriment case may apply to other changes.
http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/tags/mobility-clause/
allthough mobility is the main issue the detriment case may apply to other changes.
http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/tags/mobility-clause/
0
Comments
-
Yes, interesting case, backing up the earlier 'Tapere' EAT ruling (referred to in the link) which hinged on material detriment arising from relocation
What is also significant is that- in a TUPE transfer- a mobility clause only applies to transferor's locations..(."..as the location of the new depot was not specified on the list of alternative locations prescribed by CentreWest ")0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards