In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services PLC the Court of Appeal has confirmed that TUPE and the Acquired Rights provisions aim at preventing the employee in an undertaking from being prejudiced as a result of the transfer. It is not their objective to confer additional benefits on the employee or to improve the situation of the employee.

Mrs Jackson joined Ci in January 1999. There were no terms relating to enhanced redundancy or severance payments in her contract of employment with Ci. In June 2004 Mrs Jackson's contract of employment was transferred, under TUPE, to CIS which had an enhanced redundancy scheme. However this drew a distinction between pre March 2002 joiners and new entrants after 1st March 2002. Mrs Jackson argued that as her preserved continuity of employment deemed her continuous employment to have been from 1999 she should be able to rely on the more generous enhanced redundancy scheme applicable to employees who had joined prior to 1st March 2002.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The purpose and effect of TUPE and the Directive as implemented by TUPE is to safeguard as a matter of public policy the existing rights of employees on a transfer of an undertaking and the change of employer making it possible for an employee to work for the new employer on the same conditions as those agreed with the transferor. TUPE does not give a transferred employee access to employment benefits other than those to which the employee was entitled before the transfer of the undertaking.

Note that this case was decided under 1981 TUPE Regulations, which were replaced in 2006 by TUPE 2006. However, the relevant regulation (Reg 5(1)) is the same as new Reg 4(1), so the principles in this case still apply.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 06/11/2007.