Template:Msa TUPE summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Dealing with the [[Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations]], which are designed to protect employees' rights when the business they work for is transferred to a new employer and implemented to comply with the European Union's ''Acquired Rights Directive'', expect a term confirming there is no employment, and if the MSA is terminated, there is no transfer of employment obligations to the client. Belts and braces FAOD stuff. | Dealing with the [[Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations]], which are designed to protect employees' rights when the business they work for is transferred to a new employer and implemented to comply with the European Union's ''Acquired Rights Directive'', expect a term confirming there is no employment, and if the MSA is terminated, there is no transfer of employment obligations to the client. Belts and braces FAOD stuff. | ||
You may see an [[indemnity]] for costs the customer incurs if it does have to take on (and then make redundant) employees are a result of unwanted TUPE activation. This is probably fair, and the sort of thing indemnities were designed for, since it obliges an innocent party to incur a cost it was not expecting and does not really deserve and which arose in the absence of a breach of contract (you can’t really call the invocation of TUPE against the parties’ wishes a “breach”, as such). | |||
Latest revision as of 10:10, 7 June 2024
Dealing with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which are designed to protect employees' rights when the business they work for is transferred to a new employer and implemented to comply with the European Union's Acquired Rights Directive, expect a term confirming there is no employment, and if the MSA is terminated, there is no transfer of employment obligations to the client. Belts and braces FAOD stuff.
You may see an indemnity for costs the customer incurs if it does have to take on (and then make redundant) employees are a result of unwanted TUPE activation. This is probably fair, and the sort of thing indemnities were designed for, since it obliges an innocent party to incur a cost it was not expecting and does not really deserve and which arose in the absence of a breach of contract (you can’t really call the invocation of TUPE against the parties’ wishes a “breach”, as such).