ISS Facility Services NV v Govaerts
Where an undertaking is transferred to more than one transferee, the employee's contract can be divided between the transferees in proportion to the work he performed for each part.
Facts
Ms Govaerts was employed by ISS, a cleaning company, as a project manager working on contracts to clean buildings owned by the city of Ghent in Belgium. The cleaning contracts were divided into lots, and when ISS lost the contracts, they were awarded to two different companies. ISS argued that Ms Govaerts transferred to one of the new contractors, Atalian, and she was later dismissed. The question was how the directive applied where the work was transferred to more than one transferee.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that where an undertaking is transferred to several transferees, the rights and obligations arising from an employee's contract are transferred to each transferee in proportion to the tasks performed by the employee for the part transferred to it, provided that such a division is possible and does not cause a worsening of the employee's working conditions or adversely affect the preservation of the employee's rights. If a division is impossible, the transferee would be regarded as responsible for any termination of the employment relationship. The approach has been applied in later cases in the United Kingdom involving split transfers.
Related cases on redundancy and transfer of undertakings
- Botzen v Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij BV Case 186/83, [1985] ECR 519
- Celtec Ltd v Astley [2006] UKHL 29
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd [2001] IRLR 144
- High Table Ltd v Horst [1998] ICR 409
- Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546
- Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd [2009] ICR 1380
- Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] UKHL 30, [2000] 1 AC 51
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
