TSP Connect Employment law Update Seminar 22 March 2012

Nick HobdenPartnerE: [email protected]: 01322 623700

James WillisSenior AssociateE: [email protected]: 01322 422540

22 March 2012

© Thomson Snell & Passmore 2012

TSP Connect SeminarEmployment law update

Nick HobdenPartner & Head of Employment

2

Nick HobdenPartnerE: [email protected]: 01322 623700

3

Our subjects today

• Redundancy – pooling, alternative roles and collective consultation

• TUPE Service Provision Changes

• Government proposals on executive pay

• Unfair Dismissal

• Confidential information post-termination

4

Recent case law on pooling – a pool of one

Halpin v Sandpiper Books Ltd:• Company put sole employee in China ‘at risk’ and in pool of one

• Extensive consultation took place

• alternative employment in UK offered

• Dismissed, claimed unfair dismissal

• Was limiting the pool to one employee reasonable?• Decision about size of pool for employer to make

• Meaningful consultation and followed fair procedure

• Pool of one a logical decision

5

A pool the same size as the number of at risk employees

Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard• Employee one of four actuaries

• Capita lost number of her clients so put her ‘at risk’ in pool of one

• Justification of Pool: • Only workload to have reduced

• Team morale

• Risk of losing clients

• Tribunal found in employee’s favour:• Other actuaries should have been included in pool

• Quality of employee’s work praised

• Capita overstated commercial risk of losing clients if transferred to another actuary

6

General guidance from Capita Hartshead v Byard

• Choice of pool subject to ‘reasonable response’ test

• No need to limit pool to employees doing similar work

• Apply mind to problem of defining the pool

• Not for Tribunal to decide if fairer to act in another way

• Strong reasons behind decision to have a pool the same size as the number of ‘at risk’ employees?

‘Bumping’

• Employer ‘bumps’ out an employee whose work not diminishing in favour of ‘at risk’ employee.

7

Selecting employees at risk for alternative employment

Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Monte D’Cruz• Employee one of four managers – positions merged into one

• Unsuccessfully applied for alternative roles

• Dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal

• Samsung should have used objective criteria to decide if employee suitable for alternative role?

The EAT: Subjective Criteria• Entitled to use own judgement

• Recruitment methods require degree of subjectivity

• Interview procedures not to be overly scrutinised

8

Reducing the collective redundancy consultation period

Under current law minimum consultation period of 90 days where:• 100 or more proposed redundancies

• In one workplace establishment

• Within a 90 day period

The government has proposed to reduce the consultation period from 90 to 30 days

• Improve employers’ flexibility

• Speeds up the decision making process

• Costs savings

Public consultation later this year

9

TUPE Service Provision Changes

Recent case law has tightened up the circumstances when a Service Provision Change (SPC) amounts to a transfer under TUPE 2006.

Reg 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006 defines an SPC as one of three situations:1. Outsourcing activities from in-house to a contractor;

2. Change from one contractor to another; and

3. ‘Insourcing’ – bringing activities in-house.

10

TUPE Service Provision Changes

Four scenarios:

1. Incoming contractor carrying out different activities to outgoing contractor

2. Change of client as well as change of contractor

3. Change of location amounting to a substantial and detrimental change

4. Employees as an ‘organised grouping’

11

Enterprise Management Services v Connect Up

Will there be a transfer under TUPE where the activities carried out by an incoming contractor differ to those of the outgoing contractor?

• 15% of work carried out by outgoing contractor omitted from incoming contractor’s activities

• Activities became ‘fragmented’

• The incoming contractor lost significant amount of work to five other providers

EAT: TUPE?

12

Hunter v McCarrick

Can there be a Service Provision Change where there is not only a change of contractor, but also a change of client?

• Property management services carried out by contractor A on behalf of the client

• Activities transferred to contractor B

• Receivers appointed, properties taken out of the control of the client

• Contractor B carried out the services on behalf of the receivers

• Client changes?

EAT: TUPE?

13

Abellio London Ltd v Musse and Others

Can a change of location under a TUPE transfer amount to ‘substantial and detrimental change’ to give rise to a constructive dismissal claim?

• Change of contractor TUPE transfer

• Employees required to move to new depot six miles away

• Travel time extended by up to two hours every day

• Raised concerns and grievances and subsequently resigned

Did EAT find change was:

• material because it extended the working day by up to two hours?

• detrimental because the Claimants raised concerns with employer?

14

Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and Others

If employees spend the majority of their time on a particular contract, can they constitute an ‘organised grouping’?

• ES Employees spent over 50% of time on contract for V

• Not assigned to the client, only because of the way shift patterns worked out

• Contract transferred to contractor B who did not accept TUPE applied

• ES argued did not have to show employees organised as members of a team, was sufficient that spend majority of time on the contract

Did EAT find TUPE applied to activities for the client?

15

Government Proposals on Executive Pay

Some of the proposals include:

• Listed companies to provide more information on how pay set

• Remuneration reports to cover both current and future pay policies

• Shareholders to have binding votes rather than advisory votes on pay policies

• Provisions to reduce, withhold or clawback pay when company performs poorly

• Encouraging appointment of directors from more diverse backgrounds

• Greater employee consultation in setting directors’ pay

16

How is Executive Pay currently controlled?

• The Companies Act 2006:• Remuneration reports disclosing:

• How pay formulated

• How performance criteria measured

• Shareholders only have advisory votes on the remuneration report

• The Corporate Governance Code:• To ensure shareholders engage in determining remuneration

17

Unfair Dismissal: Gross Misconduct

Pennell v Tardis Environmental UK• Lorry driver caused £2,500 damage to firm’s lorry

• Clean record but dismissed for gross misconduct

• Claimed unfair dismissal and wanted to be re-instated

• Employer failed to provide a reference

Be careful not to jump to conclusions in gross misconduct investigations!

18

Unfair Dismissal: Expired Warnings Airbus UK Ltd v Webb

Can employers take into account previous expired warning and the underlying misconduct?

• Employee dismissed for misconduct three weeks after final written warning expired

• Dismissal letter made no mention of the expired warning

What did Court of Appeal say?• Expired warning not principal reason for dismissal

• Misconduct not time-limited

• Original misconduct relevant to reasonableness of employer’s response to later misconduct

19

Confidential Information Post-Termination

Caterpillar Logistics Services Ltd v Huesca De Crean• Employee signed confidentiality agreement

• Resigned from Caterpillar to join one of customers

• Caterpillar threatened proceedings, though no breach of agreement

• Employee undertook not to breach agreement and to refrain from certain activities

• Caterpillar sought injunctive relief:• Preventing employee from disclosing information – defined in generic terms

• A ‘barring order’ preventing involvement in commercial relationship between Caterpillar and new employer

20

Confidential Information Post-Termination

Caterpillar not granted any of the relief sought:• No evidence employee had broken or intended to break confidentiality

agreement

• Employee offered an undertaking

• Injunction application too vague – information not specified

• ‘Barring order’ only granted in exceptional circumstances

• NO restrictive covenants in employment contract!

• Caterpillar too aggressive from start of litigation process

• Caterpillar made no attempt to reach amicable solution