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

Compensation for workplace stress & anxiety
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
Psychological damage is difficult to measure and quantify, making it difficult for assessors to determine its impact. The Personal Injuries Guidelines were established by the Judicial Council in 2021 under the Judicial Council Act 2019 to identify appropriate levels of damages for different forms of personal injuries. The guidelines aim to enhance understanding of the evaluation and allocation of compensation for personal injuries to achieve more uniformity in awards.
How much compensation for stress at work?
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
In this article, we examine the circumstances that give rise to a personal injuries claim for the stress and anxiety caused by a toxic working environment.
13 Feb, 2024
The case of Electricity Supply Board -v- Kieran Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 examines whether an employee has a right to silence in the context of workplace investigations. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) (the Plaintiff) brought a case against Mr Sharkey (the Defendant) alleging that his failure to answer certain questions, in the context of a workplace investigations that was also subject to parallel criminal proceedings, amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment or, in the alternative, that the ESB was entitled to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated by him.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999
26 Jan, 2024
The Form 3 is used when an individual wants to make a representation to the Minister for Justice and Equality pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. It is an appeal to a decision of the Minister for Justice in respect of an immigration application.
Determining an Employer
03 Jan, 2024
The case of Amanda Craddock v Head–Hunt International Limited (ADJ00036831) examines the circumstances under which a redundancy payment would ordinarily be payable to an agency worker.
Claims before the WRC
18 Dec, 2023
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them we do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies.
Show More
Share by: