Representation

1. compromise agreements settling redundancy terms after a TUPE transfer and containing a "full and final settlement" provision can be valid (and need not amount to an attempt to exclude or limit the operation of the TUPE regulations which would be invalid by reason of TUPE regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1794) reg 12) even though the employee's contract with the previous employer provided for better redundancy terms;

2. if the effect of such a compromise agreement is "solely to compromise a financial claim that the employee has on the termination of his employment contract" it will not amount to an attempt to change terms of employment "solely by reason of the transfer" (which would also be invalid - see notes at Transfer of business or undertaking/change in terms of employment after )

3. where an employer purports unilaterally to change terms of the contract which do not immediately impinge on the employee at all (changes in redundancy terms are a good example because they do not impinge until an employee is in fact made redundant) then the fact that the employee continues to work does not mean that the employee can be taken to have accepted that variation in the contract.

editor's note: With effect from 6th April 2006 TUPE regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) reg 18 has replaced TUPE regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1794) reg 12. One of the results is that the normal compromise agreements rules now aply to disputes under the TUPE regulations thus eliminating, for practical purposes, the problems which gave rise to the case noted here.

For relevant general notes see Transfer of business or undertaking/contracting out and/or Changes to terms of employment and/or Breach of Contract .