Recent REFORMS of the TUPE include new measures to amend collective agreements. Detailed information on all recent TUPE reforms, including those relating to collective agreements, is available in the 2014 TUPE amendments [165kb] amendments to TUPE. Conditions that are not covered by a collective agreement are governed by the usual provisions of the TUPE. In the most recent case, the Advocate General of the ECJ delivered an opinion following the arguments in the Werhof and Alemo-Herron cases. ARD, although it leaves the fact that the terms of a collective agreement are transferred to the purchaser, but it relies on the terms of the contract in force at the time of the transfer. In this way, EU legislation strikes a balance between the competing interests of workers who have agreed on certain conditions with the contemptuous and contemptuous who have the legitimate right to know the extent of their obligations and are not bound by future collective bargaining in which they will not participate or will not be able to participate. The case concerned employees of a public authority in Germany who joined a private company (KLS) in 1997. KLS agreed that the conditions of the transferred workers would continue to be governed by the collective agreement previously in force, even if KLS did not belong to the employers` organisation that had negotiated it. KLS has included in the workers` contracts a clause stipulating that their employment is governed by the collective agreement and by all subsequent collective agreements that have amended or replaced it. Two amendments to the TUPE regulation determine when the conditions laid down in collective agreements can be changed in a transfer situation. These tupe amendments apply to transfers made after 31 January 2014 and ensure the certainty of the approach where collective agreements have a static effect on workers` contracts. For transfers that took place before 31 January 2014, the old tupe rules and the application of the decision in Alemo-Herron by the UK courts remain relevant.
The complainants were all former employees of the London Borough of Lewisham (the “Council”). In 2002, the part of the Board business in which they worked was transferred to CCL, a private sector employer. In 2004, it was broadcast to Parkwood, another private sector employer. TUPE 1981 applied to every transmission. The applicants` employment contracts contained a clause stating that their wages were “in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by the National Joint Council for Local Government (NJC)”. . . .