Astley and Others v Celtec Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY,LORD MANCE,LORD CARSWELL,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] UKHL 29 |
| Date | 21 June 2006 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[2003] UKHL J1110-1
HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Steyn
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
and others
ORDERED TO REPORT
The Committee (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) have met and considered the cause Celtec Limited (Appellants) v. Astley and others (Respondents). We have heard counsel on behalf of the appellants and respondents.
This is the considered opinion of the Committee. The cause should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities and all proceedings in this appeal shall be stayed until the Court of Justice has given its ruling on the questions or until further order, with costs being reserved.
In this preliminary reference, the Court of Justice is asked to interpret the provisions of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 ("the Directive"). It is asked to do so in the context of applications originally brought by the respondents against the appellants in the domestic Employment Tribunal to establish continuity of employment throughout their employment as civil servants and then by the appellants. The appellants denied that such employment was continuous.
The appellants in these proceedings is Celtec Limited ("Celtec"). Celtec is a company limited by guarantee and is responsible for the management of training and enterprise activities in North Wales.
The respondents, Mr John Astley, Ms Julie Owens and Ms Deborah Lynn Hawkes were full time civil servants employed in the local area offices which were formerly responsible for the management of training and enterprise activities in North Wales. They were representative applicants in the Employment Tribunal for a group of 15 former civil servants in the North Wales area.
The facts giving rise to the dispute are set out in the decision of the Employment Tribunal dated 22 December 1999, the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal [2001] IRLR 788 and the Court of Appeal [2002] ICR 1289, to which reference may be made. In very brief summary, the essential facts agreed between the parties are these:
(1)Prior to the creation and establishment of Training and Enterprise Councils ("TECs"), the Department of Employment ("DoE"), through its local Area Offices, arranged and funded programmes for the training of young people and unemployed adults by entering into contracts with training providers.
(2)In 1989 the Government announced a new initiative for post-16 vocational training and enterprise activities that it funded in England and Wales. Hitherto the training organisations contracted to provide the service had been managed by civil servants based in the 60 local Area Offices of the DoE. The new initiative included the establishment of TECs. The initiative was found to be a radical initiative by the Employment Tribunal. It was part of the contraction of the Civil Service and was also intended to provide a more effective liaison between training organisations and enterprise organisations. The aim was to deliver training that was truly needed by industry on a far more local basis than hitherto had been the case.
(3)The DoE's Area Offices were staffed by civil servants. Some of these staff were in mobile grades and had, therefore, an expectation that they might be asked to carry out work for the DoE in any appropriate location. Other staff were in non-mobile grades and would have expected to remain working in their local area. All staff were free to apply for transfer to other parts of the DoE or to the wider Civil Service if they so wished.
(4)The implementation of the new initiative required no legislation. Groups of employers were encouraged to set up TECs, local companies limited by guarantee, to take over the management of the activities in their area. Some 82 such companies were in due course set up.
(5)The work of the 60 Area Offices was divided between these TECs, so that together they had a monopoly on the management of all the training and enterprise activities previously carried on for the DoE in England and Wales.
(6)Some TECs took over DoE premises and all were given free access to the existing information systems and database. By November 1991 all of the 82 TECs in England and Wales had become operational.
(7)It was always anticipated that this initiative would take some time to implement and that the civil servants would be seconded to the newly created TECs for a period of 3 years. When the TECs originally started, they recruited only a handful of their own employees and the project was therefore staffed almost entirely by the seconded civil servants. During the secondments the civil servants remained as employees of the DoE.
(8)In a letter to the Chairmen of the TECs' Staffing Group dated 16 December 1991 the Secretary of State expressed a wish for all TECs to have made the change to becoming employers of all their staff on or before the end of their fifth year of operation.
(9)To meet concerns expressed by the TECs in 1992, an agreement was entered into between the DoE and the TECs dealing with their obligations to each other upon a secondee joining a TEC. This included arrangements for "under-pinning" the accrued Civil Service redundancy rights of former secondees. According to these arrangements the Secretary of State undertook to reimburse a TEC should a court or Industrial Tribunal subsequently decide that both periods of employment were continuous for calculation purposes.
(10)In North Wales, the Area Offices of the DoE in Wrexham and Bangor were taken over by the North East Wales TEC ("NEWTEC"). NEWTEC was an emanation of the state. Celtec is a successor to NEWTEC. It is the result of a merger in 1997 between NEWTEC and the TEC for the North West Wales.
(11)The TECs had a board of directors drawn from local businessmen. NEWTEC had 15 such directors and became operational in September 1990.
(12)The secondments to NEWTEC ended on a number of dates during 1993 and early 1994. Of the 43 civil servants who were initially seconded to NEWTEC, 18 resigned from the Civil Service and took up employment with the TEC, 10 chose to remain civil servants and were redeployed, 13 retired from the Civil Service (but in some cases subsequently took up employment with a TEC) and 2 left for other reasons not material to the proceedings.
(13)Mr Astley, Ms Hawkes and Ms Owens were full time civil servants employed in the management of the service in North Wales prior to the take-over of these offices. They were full-time employees whose work was dedicated to the undertaking and they were therefore assigned to the undertaking prior to the transfer.
(14)On the day in September 1990 when NEWTEC commenced operations there was no difference between the work they did and the work they had done as civil servants the day before. They worked from the same desks, in the same building. The programmes which the Government had guaranteed to provide for prospective, and current, trainees had to be continued. The careers of young people depended on these and there could be no interruption of activities. The Government had a responsibility to the trainees which could not be interrupted. A seamless transition was important even if the economic structure was to change with time.
(15)Towards the end of their three year secondments, each of the respondents elected to resign from the Civil Service and take up employment with the TEC. This was part of a long process of transfer of the undertaking and was in accordance with the plan laid out at the beginning of the process. There was no gap in time between the resignations and their employment by the TEC. The TEC would never have become their employer had it not been for the transfer of the undertaking.
(16)Ms Hawkes was dismissed for redundancy by Celtec in 1998.
(17)This change in arrangements amounted to a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the Directive. The recognisable and definable economic entity transferred was "the management of the government-funded post-16 vocational training and enterprise activities in England and Wales together with the information systems and database, some staff and some premises."
(18)This was a "labour intensive" undertaking and therefore movement of the Civil Service staff from the DoE to the TECs was an important defining part of the undertaking and its transfer.
(19)The Employment Tribunal (formerly known as the "Industrial Tribunal") found that each of the respondents had continuity of employment under section 218 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (formerly paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as amended) and by virtue of the Directive. Mr Astley also had continuity by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 19811. This was so notwithstanding that the relevant transfer was a long process. The Employment Tribunal considered that the direct employment of previously seconded staff constituted a transaction and was one of a series of steps in a very long process which was a planned process predicted and envisaged from the start, which was to last several years.
(20)The Employment Appeal Tribunal, by a majority decision, allowed the appellants'appeal by concluding that the transfer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Another
...... Employment Appeal Tribunal Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd and others UKEAT/ 286 / 08 2008 Nov 14 ; 2009 June 24 Judge Burke QC Employment Transfer of ... [ 2008 ] ICR 1030 ,E A T North Wales Trainingand Enterprise Council Ltd (trading as CELTEC Ltd) v Astley [ 2006 ] UKHL 29 ;[ 2006 ] ICR 992 ;[ 2006 ] 1 WLR 2420 ;[ 2006 ] 4 All ER 27 , ......
-
P14 Medical Ltd v Edward Mahon
...is personal to the employee and therefore non-transferable: North West Training and Enterprise Council Ltd (trading as Celtec) v Astley [2006] UKHL 29, [2006] ICR 992, per Lord Bingham, at paragraph 2, and that an employee cannot be required to consent to the change in the identity of an ......
- Secretary of State for Health and Another v Rance and Others
-
Gutridge and Others v Sodexho Ltd
...... lies in my acceptance of Miss Tether's submission in Armstrong , Phillips J's words in Sorbie and Lord Bingham's remarks in Celtic v Astley. The EPA is a complex piece of legislation. Right thinking people are unanimous that discrimination on grounds of gender in pay is as ......
-
The Superannuation (Specification of Employments and Offices) Regulations 2013
...2006 is the date of the Judgment of the House of Lords inNorth Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd (t/aCeltec) v Astley and others ([2006] UKHL 29). In this case the House of Lords held that the employment contracts of the claimants had transferred to the Training and Enterprise Counc......