Matlock Solicitors McIntosh Fleming & Co specialize in providing low cost legal services to Matlock residents and businesses. McIntosh Fleming provide cheap fixed price legal services to Matlock in the areas of conveyancing, probate and divorce. Few other Matlock solicitors act for a guaranteed fixed fee preferring instead to charge by the hour. We say that is like asking how long a piece of string is. If you want a guaranteed and fixed low price for your legal work then look no further. Just call us on (0800) 1712215 or e-mail gary@Matlock-solicitors.co.uk.
Dean v Latona Luxury Ltd
Employment – Wages – Obligation to pay – Employee employed by company – Company taken over by employer – Employee leaving employment and claiming unpaid wages – Employer asserting employee not entitled to sums claimed – Employment tribunal upholding employer’s submissions – Whether tribunal erring.
Employment – Wages. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee’s appeal on the basis that the employment tribunal had overlooked a letter from the employer setting out his terms of employment.
Law Society of England and Wales v Secretary of State for Justice and another
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Whether business transferred – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, SI 2006/246, reg 3.
Employment – Continuity. The Queen’s Bench Division held that there had not been a transfer of the claimant’s undertaking, in that there had been no transfer of an economic entity which retained its identity, for the purposes of reg 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, on the claimant’s claim for clarification in relation to the employment position of its employees.
Unison v National Probation Service South Yorkshire
Employment tribunal – Procedure – Originating application – Form of application – Appellants presenting ET1 – Tribunal not receiving ET1a giving name and details of first appellant – First appellant seeking determination it had presented valid claim – Employment tribunal holding first appellant not presenting valid claim – Whether tribunal erring – Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1861, reg 3.
Employment tribunal – Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal made observations on the procedure to be followed where tribunal staff did not appreciate that a claim had been made.
Irvine and another v KLT Water Engineering Ltd
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Employees resigning following dispute with employer – Employees asserting unfair dismissal – Employer having ceased trading – Whether employees could direct claims against company to which business of employer transferred – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, SI 1981/1794
Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the defendant company’s appeal and dismissed the employees’ claims on the basis that on no view did their contracts of employment transfer to the defendant by operation of TUPE.
Unison v Somerset County Council and others
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Employers deciding to transfer work to joint venture company – Union alleging that employers failing to comply with obligations to inform and consult – Employment tribunal holding employers having defence – Whether tribunal erring – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 13.
Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissed the union’s appeal on the basis that in all the circumstances the employment tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its conclusions and it was a conclusion that it had been entitled to reach.
Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure
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 by – Transfer of Undertaking Regulations 1981, SI 1981/1794, reg 5 – Council Directive (EEC) 77/187, art 3.
Employment – Continuity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was nothing in the language of reg 5 of the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations 1981, SI 1981/1794 which supported the contention that the United Kingdom had given employees wider rights than those required by Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 (on the approximation of laws of the member states relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,businesses or parts of businesses).
Hillier v Hamilton House Medical Ltd
Employment – Remuneration – Minimum remuneration – Employee presenting claim alleging breach of minimum wage – Whether employee paid below minimum wage – National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584, reg 31(1)(c)(i).
Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, held that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584, had to relate to basic rate of pay even if the employee normally only worked nights or weekends and received enhanced pay.
GMB Northern v Cable Realisations Ltd
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Duty to consult in good time before transfer – Transfer of cable business to major cable manufacturing company – Allegation that transferor failing to consult with union in good time – Employment tribunal finding allegation proved and making award to union members who were affected employees of transfer – Meaning of ‘consult’ under relevant regulations – Whether tribunal correct in its findings – Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, regs 13, 16(3).
Employment – Continuity. Where, in the instant case, the allegation was made that there had been breaches of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, by way of a ‘relevant transfer’ of a cable business, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that reg 13(2) of the Regulations, on its true construction, was designed not only to put at rest the minds of affected employees as far as possible at a time of impending changes, but was designed to allow the representatives of those employees to engage in a consultation process with the employer on an informed basis; whether the employer was obliged to engage in such a consultation exercise was dependent on reg 13(6).
Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd
Unfair dismissal – Dismissal – Continuity of employment – Claimant being employed by company for three years – New company taking over the business of old company – Claimant being dismissed within less than one year’s employment with new company – Whether claimant, when taking into account previous employment, being employed for less than one year – Employment Rights Act 1996, s 218.
Unfair dismissal – Dismissal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the claimant had, by virtue of s 218(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, been in continuous employment for the purposes of s 108 of the Act.
Communication Workers Union v Royal Mail Group Ltd
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Defendant employer having belief that no employees would transfer despite agreeing franchise with third party – Claimant trade union bringing test proceedings alleging defendant in breach of duty – Employment tribunal finding defendant failing properly to inform and consult – EAT upholding defendant’s appeal – Whether Employment Appeal Tribunal erring – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 13(2).
Employment – Continuity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division found that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct in holding that the language of reg 13(2)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, obliged the employer to describe what he genuinely believed to be the legal, social and economic implications of a transfer of undertaking.
Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust
Employment – Continuity – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking – Transfer terminating contract of employment – Transfer of employee under TUPE involving change in location of work – Contract of employment specifing place of work and containing mobility clause – Employee resigning and claiming constructive dismissal – Tribunal finding that change of location not fundamental breach of contract of employment – Employee not constructively dismissed – Whether mobility clause changed by transfer – Whether requirment to move location fundamental breach of contract of employment – Whether tribunal applying correct test to TUPE – Whether doctrine of ‘substantial equivalence’ applying – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, reg 4(9).
Employment – Continuity. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The tribunal erred in construing the terms and conditions of employment, transferred under Transfer ofUndertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, reg 4(9), as permitting the employer to transfer the employee to another location, providing it was reasonable to do so.