Case study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Case Study Example The lost service charge provisions are not protected by TUPE because they are deemed to be independent contracts that have been outsourced. They are only protected when the service entails the provision of one whole activity such as catering, and when the completion of the job is credited to the company, such as the entity has no options of other service providers. The basic principle of UK law is the sale or transfer of an entity automatically brings all the contracts the entity had with the employees, and the employees have a choice on whether to continue with the new entity or resign. This makes a lot of legal sense because of the nature of a contract, which is an agreement between two parties regarding a particular subject. A contract is reached upon after considering many factors, bargaining and the future circumstance. Therefore, imposing a contract upon a secondary entity may not be fair. However, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) law is lenient on employees and protects their rights but this protection is not automatic. The law has to consider the circumstances of each case to see whether the employees qualify for a protection or not. Therefore, this question applies the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) law because it touches on the transfer of an entity and also on organized group of employees. In the case of Argyll Coastal Services v Sterling and others UKEATS/0012/11/BI, the question that came up for consideration by the court was the definition of the word organized group of employees. The court contented that an organized group of employees was a particular set of employees who were less than the entire workforce of the entity concerned and who worked together as a team for the accomplishment of a particular purpose. However, on appeal, the court contended that the group was not an

Cheap Escape v. Haddox and Tessman Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Cheap Escape v. Haddox and Tessman - Case Study Example This case was brought before the Franklin County Municipal Court, State of Ohio. The municipal court awarded a default judgment, in favor of Cheap Escape. The municipal court denied Tessman’s motion to vacate. Tessman appealed. Judgment was reversed by the appeals court and remanded for dismissal (p. 1, 2). Issues Presented or Questions of Law Does the municipal court have jurisdiction over subject matter when relevant events occurred outside the county (Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 2008)? Arguments or Objectives of the Parties Appellant argues that â€Å"the municipal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any statutorily prescribed action, regardless of where underlying events occurred. Conversely, Appellee argues that the phrase (original jurisdiction within its territory), limits subject-matter jurisdiction to those actions which occurred within the territorial limits of the court† (p. 3). Holding/Rule of Law â€Å"R.C. 1901.18(A) limits municipal court subject-matter jurisdiction to actions or proceedings that have a territorial connection to the court† (p.6). â€Å"The parties admittedly did not have territorial connections to the Franklin County Municipal Court†, (so) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction† (p. 6). Judgment of the municipal court is void for lack of jurisdiction and the holding of the court of appeals is affirmed (p. 6).