Tupe Settlement Agreement
In the event of a transfer of TUPE, does a transaction agreement with an employer automatically exclude rights against other real or potential sponsors? No, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Tamang/Act Security LimitedIf there is a TUPE transfer, there is often more than one employer in the framework. This is particularly acute for changes to service delivery and in cases covered by TUPE Regulation 13-16 (information and consultation) where, in the latter case, there is possible joint and several liability of employers. In the event of a change in the performance of a security contract, an ACAS settlement agreement was entered into with the original employer Reliance (now Securitas) to free up rights. However, two other potential parties, ACT Security Ltd and Euro Storage UK Ltd, were not included. When staff decided to pursue the claims against these other parties, did the initial compromise agreement prevent them from doing so? The labour court said they could not take legal action. It considered that the agreement with Reliance was a release of the three pie symbols (referring to Chitty on contracts providing that a discharge by one debtor freed the others). The EAT felt that this was a mistake. On the true construction of the agreement, it was an alliance, Not pursue Reliance, and not an unblocking of all respondents. Their scope was limited to reliance and not to others. This shows how important it is that all potential parties to a TUPE transfer be required to enter into a transaction agreement when finality is required. You, the employer and the purchaser have agreed on conditions for the settlement of all rights, which you have against the employer and/or the purchaser resulting from your employment and dismissal [including the [Claim (s), AND/OR Court Claim, AND/OR High Court Claim] ] and which terminates your employment with the employer and provides that this agreement constitutes an effective waiver of those rights and meets the terms of the agreement. In addition, the contract must be made in exchange for a payment (a contract is binding only in the case of “precious consideration”).
The recent case of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which entered into a transaction agreement between the employee and an employer, does not automatically prevent the worker from asserting rights against other employers involved in a transfer of TUPE. Transaction agreements are used to prevent workers from asserting any number of rights against their employer. Most labour law rights can only be settled in this way, for example. B unjustified dismissals, discrimination, etc. Some labour law rights are considered so sacred that they cannot even be revoked in a transaction contract. Among the rights that cannot be abandoned are some errors of collective consultation (where there is a transfer of TUPE or collective dismissal), certain claims under the 2010 Agency Workers` Regulation (although these may be governed by a COT3 agreement), rights to blacklists and the rights to legal treatment of maternity, paternity or adoption.