In Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others v Estado portuges (C-160/14) the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) considered the meaning of a "transfer of a business" under the Acquired Rights Directive (the Directive) in relation to a situation whereby a majority shareholder assumed significant functions of a former subsidiary, which had been wound up.

Background

The current position is that 8 players have been reported as having objected to their contracts of employment transferring to the "new Rangers". Charles Green has apparently threatened to litigate any departing players given that, in his view, they are in breach of contract.

At this time of year, sports pages are normally rife with transfer speculation before the new domestic seasons begin across the UK. This summer is different however, due to increased interest in Glasgow Rangers and the effect of “TUPE transfers” of players to the Rangers Newco.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

In this case the Court of Appeal held that, as a general rule, administration does not fall within regulation 8(7) of TUPE 2006 (which disapplies the automatic transfer principle meaning that employees do not transfer) and instead falls within regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006 (which is much narrower in scope and only protects a transferee against the transfer of certain liabilities to employees).

Key2law (Surrey) LLP v D’Antiquis 2011 EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

Today (20th December) the Court of Appeal has clarified how TUPE applies when a business is sold after administration proceedings are instituted. It has decided that employees transfer to the new owner of the business, and are protected from transfer-related dismissals, thereby putting to rest more than two years of legal uncertainty following conflicting decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

It’s been quite a week for important cases on TUPE and its operation in relation to administrations. The Court of Appeal has delivered two judgments which are of considerable importance for those contemplating and structuring transactions out of administration.

The key points to note are that: