In Sweetin v Coral Racing, the Scottish EAT has confirmed that the assessment of compensation in respect of a failure to inform and consult in TUPE situations should follow the same approach required to be adopted in redundancy cases.
The purpose of the award is to provide a penal, punitive and deterrent sanction for breach by the employer of its obligations to inform and consult, rather than to compensate the employees for losses suffered in consequence of the breach.
Although it has been argued that the breach of the redundancy consultation provisions are more serious than the failure to consult under TUPE, the EAT noted that the EU considers the legal, economic and social implications of a business transfer to be so important that proper consultation is a vital element to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of such a transfer.
Consequently the EAT followed the guidelines set out in the case of Susie Radin v. GMB and concluded that a sum equivalent to thirteen weeks' pay was the appropriate award bearing in mind that the consultation and information obligations had, in this case, been completely neglected by the employer.
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 22/02/2006.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.