1 INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS PENSIONS AND TUPE Richard Arthur Thompsons Solicitors 24 February...
-
Upload
lora-washington -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS PENSIONS AND TUPE Richard Arthur Thompsons Solicitors 24 February...
1
INSTITUTE OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
PENSIONS AND TUPE
Richard Arthur
Thompsons Solicitors
24 February 2009
2
PARTICULAR PROBLEMS
• Changes to terms and conditions;
• The Werhof case;
• Retention of Employment Model;
• Information and Consultation; and
• Pensions.
3
CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• If the sole or principal reason for the variation is (1) the transfer itself or (2) a reason connected with the transfer that is not an ETO reason, the variation is void;
• ETO reason “…..entailing changes in the workforce”;
• Change in headcount or job description;• Variations permitted where the reason is
connected with the transfer, and is an ETO reason;
• Does that comply with the ARD?
4
CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS
London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others:
• two universities merged in August 2002;
• In 2004, the merged universities terminated contracts and sought to harmonise terms and conditions;
• Were the dismissals transfer-connected?
• Was there an ETO reason?
5
CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS
ET:
• dismissals were transfer-connected despite the two year gap between the transfer and the dismissals; and
• No ETO reason because the reason was to harmonise (no change in the workforce).
EAT agreed.
6
CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Power v Regent Security Services Ltd:• Pre-transfer contractual retirement age of 60;• Post-transfer, employer and employee agree to
retirement age of 65;• Transferee sought to retire employee at 60; and• Transferee argued change to 65 was transfer-
connected, no ETO, and therefore void.
EAT: “…No reason why the employee should not hold the transferee to the new term…”.
7
The Werhof Case
• W’s rate of pay determined by collective agreement between trade union and employer’s federation;
• Employment transfers;• Transferee not party to bargaining machinery;• Transferee concludes new agreement with Works
Council; • Trade union concludes new agreement with employer’s
federation;• W argues that his pay should be determined in
accordance with the new agreement between the trade union and the employer’s federation.
8
The Werhof case
ECJ:
• “Static” interpretation:
• Only the agreement in force at the date of transfer transfers;
• (Also employer’s rights under Article 10 ECHR);
• W could not rely on the new agreement.
9
The Werhof Case
• Appears to undermine transfer of collectively agreed pay;
• But, in Werhof, there were two separate agreements;
• Entitlement to subsequent NJC awards should still transfer:
• Hughes v Aramark;
• Alemmo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd.
10
The Retention of Employment Model
• To allow staff who would otherwise transfer in PFI/PPP schemes to remain employed in the NHS;
• Originally intended for non-supervisory staff in catering, cleaning, laundering, security and portering;
• Advantages: job security and pensions;• Employee objects to transfer and enters
secondment arrangement.
11
The Retention of Employment Model
The Celtec case:• Transfer of vocational training to TEC’s in
1990;• Civil servants continue to be employed by
Department of Employment until 1993, working under secondment for TEC’s;
• Became employees of TEC’s in 1993;• Q: What was the date of transfer of
employment?
12
The Retention of Employment Model
Answer (House of Lords):
• If employee not given option of transfer, but is instead offered opportunity of secondment, she hasn’t objected to the transfer of her own free will;
• It follows that her employment transfers at the start of the secondment.
Q: Does this cast doubt on the ROE Model?
13
The Retention of Employment Model
Answer: Probably not, provided that four conditions are satisfied:
• Employee given free choice as to whether to transfer;
• Employee freely decides not to transfer;• Employee objects to transferring
(preferably in writing); and• Employee enters into new contract
permitting secondment.
14
The Retention of Employment Model
• The Department of Health agrees that ROE survives Celtec;
• Subsequent EAT decision in Capita Health Solutions v (1) BBC and (2) McLean can be distinguished.
15
Information and Consultation
• “Long enough before the transfer to enable consultation to take place…”;
• Fact of transfer, date and reasons;• Legal, economic and social implications
for affected employees;• “Measures” old employer envisages it will
take; and• “Measures” old employer envisages new
employer will take
16
Information and Consultation
• “Affected employees”-any employee who may be affected by the transfer, regardless of whether they actually transfer;
• Election of employee representatives;
• “Measures”: any changes to existing working practices or arrangements.
17
Information and Consultation
• Obligation to consult only where employer envisages taking “measures”;
• Employer must consider union’s representations and reply to them;
• With a view to reaching agreement;
• Up to 13 weeks’ pay per affected employee;and
• Award is punitive.
18
Pensions: The Basics
Past Service and Future Service:• No contractual right to future service benefits as
pre-transfer;• Past Service: Pension Schemes Act 1993 and
Preservation Regulations;• Future Service: Sections 257 and 258 Pensions
Act 2008 and Transfer of Employment (Pension Protection) Regulations 2005;
• Public Sector: Best Value Authorities Staff Transfers (Pensions) Direction 2007 and Cabinet Office Statement of Practice 2005.
19
Pensions: Past Service
PSA 1993 and Preservation Regulations apply to “early-leavers”:
• Money purchase scheme: accrued value;• Final salary scheme:
(i) <3 months: refund of contributions;
(ii) >3 months, <2 years: refund of contributions or “cash transfer value”; and
(iii) >2 years: deferred pension or “cash equivalent transfer value”.
20
Pensions: Compulsory Transfers
Can be forced upon active, deferred and pensioner members on reorganisation or business transfer where:
1. Transferor scheme trustees consent; and2. Transferor scheme actuary certifies credits in
transferee scheme as no less favourable (GN16 Certificate).(Actuarial Standards Board: only “exceptionally” will a transfer from a db to a dc scheme satisfy the Preservation Regulations).
21
Pensions: Future Service
Pensions Act 2004 and Transfer of Employment (Pension Protection) Regulations 2005:
• DB scheme meeting defined standards; or• DC scheme (matching employer contributions up
to 6% of pay); or• Stakeholder scheme (effectively a personal
pension).
Employer gets to choose which, regardless of transferor scheme.
22
Pensions: Public Sector Transfers
Pensions Direction 2007 and Cabinet Office Guidance 2005:
• Future Service: contracting public authority must ensure that contract provides for “broadly comparable” pension;
• GAD: in the opinion of a qualified actuary, no identifiable member will suffer material detriment;
• DC scheme can not be broadly comparable with a DB scheme;
• GAD Passport Scheme in local government discontinued;
• Enforcement: Section 101 Local Government Act 2003; non-local government-more difficult.