«Although it is unlikely that there will be further attempts to rely upon TUPE in this way,» he says, «the Court of Appeal is due to give judgment in Power v Regent Security Services Ltd on the question of whether an employee can rely upon the terms in
his original contract of employment.»
Not exact matches
Jack Lew was appointed U.S. Secretary
of the Treasury last year and, the Journal item noted, «The terms
of Mr. Lew's
original employment contract with Citigroup included a bonus guarantee if he left the bank for a high level position with the United States government or regulatory body.»
Whoever leaked the
original memo may be a different story, depending on the nature
of their
employment contract, but that has nothing to do with Peter.
One judge said it «depends on whether or not the illness or incapacity was
of such a nature or likely to continue for such a period
of time that either the employee would never be able to perform the duties contemplated by the
original employment contract or that it would be unreasonable for the employer to wait any longer for the employee to recover.»
The
contract's job is to be explicit, even to state the obvious; it is not supposed to be an
original creative work or to mention only atypical terms
of employment.
Last but not least, the Court rejected Mr. Krishnamoorthy's argument that section 9 (1)
of the ESA should be interpreted as (i) deeming the
employment contract between an employee and an employer to be binding on a subsequent purchaser
of that employer's assets, and (ii) requiring the purchaser
of a business» assets to offer
employment to employees
of that business on the same terms as their
original contracts.
If the employer fails to provide proper notice
of termination
of the
contract, the employee will be entitled to insist on adherence to the
original terms
of the
employment contract.
In addition, section 9 (1)
of the ESA does not require the purchaser
of a business» assets to offer
employment to employees
of that business on the same terms as their
original contracts.
Nor does s. 9 (1)
of the ESA require the purchaser
of a business» assets to offer
employment to employees
of that business on the same terms as their
original contracts as claimed by Mr. Krishnamoorthy.
... the only way to return the employer to its
original position was to deprive the employee
of his bonus from the date
of the breach onward, on the basis that «had [the employer] been aware that [the employee] was secretly diverting the company's assets and resources from September 3, 2007, [the employer] would most assuredly have terminated [the employee]'s
employment contract as it did immediately upon discovering [the employee]'s dishonest activities.