Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 86 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2011] UKSC 26
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 15 June 2011

Catchwords

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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.