Hi... have an A8 client who was in full Registered work at a fixed place of employment.

The company was taken over and all employees were kept on doing the same job in the same place. These job transfers were done under the TUPE regulation which protected the contractual terms of thier contract.

I contacted the WRS who agreed that there was no requirement to re-notify a change on employer as it was not the client who changed jobs and I was sucessful in getting benefit paid.

Since then the JSA revised the decision saying that she should have re-registered with the WRS that the company had been taken over and there is now a tribunal hearing.

Need some help, anyone had similar cases ?

A very interesting enquiry and I'm afraid that I have no information to help - maybe others do.

However, and especially as your client made enquiries with the WRS, I'm thinking that this is a very good candidate for extra-statutory payments should an appeal fail.

I'm surprised that this hasn't come up before on RN (so far as I remember anyway) and the result will be interesting... Please let us know the outcome.

what right has the DWP to override what the WRS say? get the WRS to put their view in writing (if they haven't already) and then see what tribunal makes of it...

have you received the appeal submission yet?

if the grounds of revision are ignorance or mistake as to a material fact, it would be interesting to know what evidence of the material fact they include. however, i'll be surprised if the appeal sub refers to the revision regs, never mind considered them...or am i being overly cynical?

i'm assuming that the DWP has now discounted the work he did for the new employer and this leaves a shortfall in the 52 weeks continuus work???

as well as dubious grounds for revision, it also smacks of discrimination on the grounds of nationality...

Picking up on JJ's point, there is a CD somewhere that says a different opinion on the same facts is not grounds for a revision or supersession, though this might only be in the context of medical opinion. I don't know the reference unfortunately, but you might find it in the annotation to the relevant regs in CPAG's Legislation volumes, or perhaps other contributors might know it.

I have recently had a successful review of refusal of JSA for my A8 national client. She had worked at a nurseing home and registered with workers registration. The contract was taken over- after 8 months, my client didnt re-register. Eventally she was made redundnant and claimed JSA and refused. I reviewed the decision on the basis that TUPE applied and my cleint has recently been awarded JSA

Hi Vicki.... happy you were sucessful, what evidence or regulations did you use ?

thanks

Mon 17-May-10 01:35 PM by nevip

My argument would have been based on reg 4(1) of The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 which is in the following terms:

"Except where objection is made under paragraph (7), a relevant transfer shall not operate so as to terminate the contract of employment of any person employed by the transferor and assigned to the organised grouping of resources or employees that is subject to the relevant transfer, which would otherwise be terminated by the transfer, but any such contract shall have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the person so employed and the transferee".

As he has a continuing contract of employment the requirement to re-register is purposeless.

I have to agree with the previous post. I have also spoken with our LSC employment adviser who concurs that on this occasion (!!) JC+ have got it wrong.

Thu 20-May-10 08:30 AM by Tony Bowman

I'm not so sure. Worker registration is concerned with work for an 'authorised employer' (reg 7 Accession (IWR) Regs 2004). In this scenario, although the contract of employment might remain in the same terms as highlighted, the employer has undoubtedly changed.

I'm minded to agree with Claire. As she says, registration is in the domain of the WRS scheme and if they say the work is properly registered, is it really up to the DWP to go against that?

And if all else fails, a claim for extra-statutory payments is still an option.