The Employment Tribunal ruled last month that ex-employees of Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (in liquidation) (“SSI”) are entitled to the maximum protective award for a complete failure by SSI to inform and consult with them about their redundancies (90 days’ pay for each of the 1100 employees affected).

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.

The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.

Pre-2006, it was always clear that TUPE applied to transfer employees working in a business when it was bought out of administration. However, changes in 2006 provided that the automatic transfer principle would not apply to any transfer of a business or undertaking where the transferor was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, which had been 'instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor'.

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith1, the latest decision on the hot topic of employment status in the “gig economy”, following the Deliveroo and CitySprint cases in 2017. The court dismissed Pimlico's appeal, holding that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Smith, who was engaged under a contract describing him as a self-employed plumber, was in fact a worker. He may now proceed with claims of disability discrimination and for unlawful deductions and holiday pay.