Norwich/Rangers

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
stilljaroldcanary said:
basic UK employment law says you have the right to earn a living and 99% of contracts cannot stop you leaving for another company unless you are a shareholder and you have a restrictive covenant due to that
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsense - why did you make-up that? Employment contracts, as with all contracts are based upon equity of relationship and legal intent. Unless they can be shown to be unilaterally unfair they are enforceable. Inducement to break a contract is actinable by a claim for unliquidated damages - everyday, lawyers have to deal with such claims normally for Senior Management positions within business. There is no such right under English Employment Law (incidentally there is no such thing as what you call UK Law) to 'earn a living' - the closest such right is actually from Common Law and even then this is disputed as it was a right created through Magna Carta but I won't bore you with the details of that. Such a Common Law right has no impication upon contract law relating to termination rights in a case based upon TUPE. Nor does what is commonly referred to under EC Law as the 'right to make a living' - which has no bearing upon in force contracts which are mutually beneficial. From what I understand of the Rangers' situation, they are not disputing the rights under TUPE but 1) The process for exercising those rights 2)That players contractually agreed to waive certain rights (I don't know the details) in exchange for reduced transfer fees. 3) That the rights establshed by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 do not apply as the conditions for what constitutes a 'businsss transfer'' have not been met. The option to opt out of a TUPE transfer is rarely exercised as the intention of the legislation is to protect employees not grant new rights - however the right only exists up to the time of the transfer and that if an employee has not objected by that time then the right to object is lost, which is part of the Rangers' argument. As we have discussed under different topics, FIFA precludes recourse to civil courts for actions relating to football disputes - although Rangers have indeed made application to The Court of Session on a different issue. Ultimatly, unless Rangers wants to risk being banned from footballing activities, FIFA will make the ruling which will not be based upon provisions of TUPE anyway.
 
Davrid

a) Seriously, chill out. There is no need to write like that.

b) As you say, we don't know what's gone on here, but I'm not sure your points about the issue are entirely correct:

1) The process for exercising those rights 2)That players contractually agreed to waive certain rights (I don't know the details) in exchange for reduced transfer fees. 3) That the rights establshed by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 do not apply as the consition for what constitutes a 'businsss transfer'' have not been met.
Click to expand...

This gives an outline of what we do know: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18569993

Evidently a "business transfer" has occurred.

The dispute appears to consist entirely of whether the players have failed to raise their objection in time, with the counter argument being that they weren't given the opportunity to raise an objection when they should have been.
 
Rob.

I am merely stating what I know to be Rangers' avowed position at various times - I'm not convinced a 'business transfer' had occured at the time of making the objection - this is the point, not whether one has now been made but I'm not close enough to it to know. But the point of my post was legal structure in highlighting: 1) the inaccuracies of what has been posted here about Employment Law - and, yes, most of it is nonsense. I simply have no idea why someone would post drivel without any foundation in fact. 2) TUPE is not as straighforward as some would have you believe 3) Ultimately, the resolution has nothing to do with TUPE anyway.
 
Oh and I did know it used to be called the EC. Just when I studied it earlier this year we all called it the EU. As does almost every lay person.
 
ncfcwonky said:
How about the European Coal and Steel Community then? <whistle>
Click to expand...

And your point is what? I think you completely missed the point I was making ie we lawyers generally refer to legislative bodies by the statue of incorporation, not by the prevailing name of the organisation....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back