Protected terms and conditions

Case 8: The facts

Darren Graham had been transferred under TUPE. His contract said that he would be entitled to pay increases in accordance with those agreed by the local government National Joint Council (NJC). The new company refused to pay increases agreed through the NJC in 2000 and 2001. Graham claimed that they amounted to unlawful deductions.

The ruling

The Court of Appeal held that the new company had no right to depart from paying the increases, without at least first informing and consulting with the employee on the change to the contract.

* Graham v Glendale Managed Services, Court of Appeal 4 June 2003

Case 9: The facts

When Mr Spiers was transferred under TUPE, he and other employees were offered new terms and conditions. These included a change to inferior redundancy rights. Spiers claimed that his contract had been breached and that he still had the right to the better redundancy terms.

The ruling

The EAT ruled that it is a basic principle of law that an employer cannot waive rights which otherwise a TUPE protected employee has. It went even further and held that employees cannot agree to vary their contract terms if the outcome is specifically to deprive them of TUPE rights in the lead up to an impending transfer.

* Lansing Linde Severside v Spiers EAT/1490/01