Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Appeal |
Citation(s) | [2009] IRLR 250, [2009] EWCA Civ 1094, [2010] IRLR 82 |
Keywords | |
Transfer of undertakings |
Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd is a UK labour law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees.
Mr Oakland, a general manager, claimed that he was unfairly dismissed from his job as general manager by Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, which had recently bought the assets of the fruit and vegetable business from Wellswood Ltd. This company had gone into insolvency after three years of trading. The insolvency was a pre-packaged administration. Some employees, including Mr Oakland, were told that they would be taken on by the new company. But then Mr Oakland was dismissed. He claimed it was unfair.
The Tribunal held that Mr Oakland had not worked for the new Wellswood for sufficiently long to qualify for unfair dismissal. This depended on TUPER 2006 regulation 8(7).
Peter Clark J held that regulation 8(7) was triggered and TUPER 2006 regulations 4 and 7 did not apply since the intention of the administration was to return value to the creditors. It had been open to the Tribunal as a matter of fact that the prepack administration had been started with a view to liquidation of assets. He added that this was a finding consistent with the policy of aiming to promote a ‘rescue culture’ to ensure that potential purchasers of a failing business are ‘not putt off by the effects of TUPE protection’. [1]
Mr Oakland argued that ERA 1996 s 218 (which the counsel just managed to find) should apply so the transfer of the business from Wellswood Ltd to Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd did not break continuity of employment.
Moses LJ held that clearly there was a transfer and therefore under ERA 1996 s 218(2)(b) there had been no break in continuity of employment. So the EAT was wrong.
Rix LJ and Smith LJ agreed.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.
The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.
Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Slater [2007] IRLR 928 is a UK labour law case, concerning the effects of a business transfer on an employee's rights at work. If the company goes into voluntary liquidation, and the business is sold before the final disposal of assets, then TUPER 2006 regulation 8 does not apply.
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1988] UKHL 10 is a UK labour law case concerning the Business Transfers Directive 2001 relevant for the implementing TUPER 2006, though decided under the older 1981 version.
McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment[1996] EWCA Civ 1166 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an agency worker did have an employment contract for the purpose of claiming for unpaid wages on an employer's insolvency.
Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat [2006] EWCA Civ 220 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for an implied contract between an employee and a place they work through an employment agency. It holds that with reference to the reality of the relationship, an implied contract should be found according to the ordinary rules of construction.
James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35 is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher.
Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 is a UK labour law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees.
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.