||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 86 (Jun)
|| UKSC 26
Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson
||Thomas Linden QC and Laura Prince (instructed by Unison) for the claimants.
||Adrian Lynch QC and Richard Hignett (instructed by Freeth Cartwright LLP) for Parkview.
||15 June 2011
EMPLOYMENT - CONTINUITY - TRANSFER OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR UNDERTAKING - PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES BEING TRANSFERRED TO PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER - CONTRACT PROVIDING PAY INCREASES TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS - NEW EMPLOYER REFUSING TO RECOGNISE NEW RATES OF PAY NEGOTIATED AFTER TRANSFER - WHETHER NEW EMPLOYER BOUND TO RECOGNISE RATES OF PAY NEGOTIATED AFTER TRANSFER - WHETHER QUESTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO COURT OF JUSTICE - TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING REGULATIONS 1981, , REG 5 - COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EEC) 77/187, ART 3.
EMPLOYMENT CONTINUITY. The Supreme Court held there would be a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling under art 267 of the EC Treaty on the issue of whether and to what extent there was room for giving a different meaning to Reg 5 of Transfer of Undertaking Regulations 1981 in domestic law from that indicated in the case of Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG as to the meaning of art 3(1) of EC Business Transfers Directive 77-187, subsequently replaced by Council Directive (EC) 2001-23.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases