Acquired Rights Directive (2001)

Consequently the Acquired Rights Directive (2001) included scope for considering concepts such as outsourcing and allowing a degree of flexibility in recognition for the need to endeavour to combine quality with economy. Another matter considered was the question of joint liability for both the transferor and the transferee in the case of unfair dismissals prior to transfer. Other matters included the consideration of negotiations in transfer related matters where there was no Trade Union recognition. Other changes included the employee right to resign and effectively claim unfair dismissal if material and detrimental changes to terms and conditions are created by the prevailing transfer. However in relation to insolvency the TUPE (1981) Regulations had no provision to deviate from fully protected terms and conditions. Consequently curtailing any effective attempts to reduce costs by reducing size of the workforce or to reduce the wages …show more content…
These are intended to consolidate the flexibility demonstrated in Article 5, within the Acquired Rights Directive (2001), which was intended to foster a rescue culture and preserve jobs longer term (Bernard, 2012). Regulation 8 is intended to support rescue culture by reducing the liabilities post transfer. In particular Regulation 8(5) effectively precludes the application of Regulation 4 (TUPE, 2006) in insolvency transfers and prevents the transfer of liabilities for monies payable to employees under applicable statutory schemes as determined by Chapter VI Employment Rights Act 1996. The issue was and still is the exact nature of this intention, as even at the time of passing the TUPE Regulations (2006), the Redundancy Payment Office appear to contradict the intention (Anderson, 2011), by issuing a statement three days prior to 2006 TUPE Regulations effectively minimising the impact of the intention by only agreeing to fund in every limited