News & Events

Consultation on proposed reform of TUPE 2006

Submitted By Firm: Addleshaw Goddard

Contact(s): Michael Leftley, Sarah Harrop

Author(s):

Amanda Steadman

Date Published: 2/11/2013

Article Type: Legal Update

Share This:

As part of its ongoing review of employment law, the Government has issued a Consultation on its proposals to reform TUPE 2006.  The consultation seeks views on a variety of proposals aimed at ending the gold-plating of the Acquired Rights Directive, including a proposal to repeal the service provision change rules which were introduced in 2006.  The Consultation closes on 11 April 2013 and the Government's response is expected by 4 July 2013.  The Government has indicated that if responses support change, it will seek to implement the majority of the reforms in October 2013.

Background

In November 2011, the Government called for evidence on the effectiveness of TUPE 2006 (TUPE), due to concerns that the regulations were overly complex and that they "gold plated" the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD). The Call for Evidence focused on whether TUPE could be improved or whether guidance and best practice examples could better address the issue. The Government issued its Response to the Call for Evidence on 14 September 2012.  Despite the cautious tone of the Response on the prospects for reform of TUPE, the Consultation now proposes a number of material changes to the existing regulations.

Key proposals

The key proposals are as follows:

(i)         Repeal of the service provision change rules (SPC rules):

Have ever felt nostalgic about the operation of  service provisions changes under TUPE 1981?  If you have, you may get the chance to travel back in time as the first, and most significant, proposal in the Consultation is to repeal the service provision change rules introduced in 2006 by the Labour Government.

The SPC rules brought most service provision changes within the scope of TUPE.  In doing so, the UK went further than its obligations under the ARD, with the intention of:

  • affording greater legal certainty;
  • ending exposure to fluctuating case law;
  • creating a level playing field in the tendering process; and
  • reducing costs.

The Government considers that the SPC rules have failed to deliver the benefits originally anticipated and impose an unnecessary burden on business.  In particular, the Consultation highlights that the SPC rules:

  • act as a disincentive to service providers bidding for contracts;
  • are unhelpful to clients who wish to effect a change of personnel working on the contract and are unable to achieve this;
  • do not resolve legal uncertainties to the extent anticipated.  Whilst there is more certainty on the application of TUPE, this is outweighed by new uncertainties (e.g. on issues such as assignment and fragmentation); and
  • the need to obtain legal advice has not gone away

If implemented, the law would revert to the pre-2006 position, meaning that a service provision change would only fall within the scope of TUPE where there was: "a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity".  What this means is that there must be an organised group of staff who are assigned to a common task which is to be carried out by another employer.  There must also be a significant transfer of assets or a major part of the workforce in terms of numbers or skills.  

Pre-2006, the identification of a TUPE transfer in a service provision change scenario was a complex task, founded upon ever changing European case law.  However, the Government's view is that many of the uncertainties that existed at that time have receded as European case law has become more settled. 

Nevertheless, it seems somewhat optimistic to conclude that the repeal of the SPC rules will reduce the need for legal advice.  It will be less clear whether TUPE applies at all and advice will need to be obtained on the application of TUPE, as well as on existing areas of uncertainty such as whether an employee is assigned to the transferring part of the business.

The Government accepts that there is a need for a lead in period to allow clients and contractors time to plan for the change in the law.  The Consultation seeks views on the appropriate period (ranging from less than a year to five years or more).

(ii)         Employee Liability Information (ELI):

The next major proposal is to repeal the ELI provisions, which require the transferor to provide the transferee with specified information about the transferring employees.

In the Consultation, the Government acknowledges that it is in the interests of: (i) transferees to receive information in good time to help business planning; and (ii) employees in that it facilitates the early provision of information and consultation about the transfer.

Nevertheless, the Government identifies certain problems with the ELI provisions including that:

  • the ELI is often supplied at the very last minute (i.e. 14 days pre-transfer);
  • last minute provision of ELI means that the transferee cannot easily assess costs or communicate what measures it might need to take post-transfer.  This, in turn, has an adverse impact on employees; and
  • the categories of information are very limited.

Given the acknowledgment of the benefits of ELI, one option would be to bolster this provision by requiring earlier disclosure of better quality ELI.  However, the Government has rejected such a move on the basis that this would place a greater burden on business. 

Instead, it will be left to the parties to co-operate on the disclosure of information.  Whilst this might be achievable in many standard business transfer scenarios, this will not always be the case where there is a service provision change.  The Government acknowledges this is a problem but their position is that if the SPC rules are repealed, then the impact of losing the ELI provisions will be lessened as fewer service provision changes will be covered by TUPE. 

(iii)        Removal of provisions preventing: (a) variation of terms and conditions; and (b) dismissals, for "a reason connected to the transfer":

Fifty seven percent of respondents to the Call for Evidence thought that the lack of provision for post-transfer harmonisation of terms and conditions was a "significant burden" on business and led to a "two-tier" workforce.  Given ECJ case law on this area, the Government does not consider that permitting harmonisation is compatible with the ARD. 

Instead, it intends to remove the provision which prohibits an employer from making changes which are "connected to the transfer".  As such, varying terms and conditions will only be prevented where they are made by reason of the transfer itself.  The Government, however, sees merit in retaining the ETO exemption, which would mean that even a variation of terms to be made by reason of the transfer could potentially be valid where an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce could also be identified.

Similarly, in relation to dismissals, the proposal is to remove the prohibition on dismissals if the sole or principal reason is a reason "connected" to the transfer that is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce.  Instead, dismissals will only be prohibited where they are by reason of the transfer itself.  As for variations of terms, however, the ETO exemption would be retained, which would mean that even a dismissal by reason of the transfer could be valid where an ETO reason could be identified.

These changes will offer employers much greater flexibility to vary terms and conditions and make dismissals in a transfer situation.

(iv)        Change of location to be a valid reason for dismissal:

It is proposed that the ambit of "an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce" be expanded to include a change in location of the workforce, thereby aligning the meaning of an ETO reason with the definition of redundancy in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which permits place of work redundancies).  This would mean that dismissals by reason of a change in the location of the workforce would no longer be automatically unfair.

The Government considers that such a change would be consistent with the ARD's intention that dismissals for genuine business reasons should be permitted. 

(v)         Permit the transferor to rely on the transferee's ETO reason to justify a pre-transfer dismissal:

Currently, a transferor is unable to rely on a transferee's ETO reason to justify a pre-transfer dismissal.  As a consequence, this means that the employment relationship continues for longer than needed even though there is a valid ETO

The proposal is to allow transferor to rely on the transferee's ETO reason in order to justify a pre-transfer dismissal.  In such circumstances, the liability for the dismissal would remain with the transferor and not be inherited by the transferee.

Other proposals:

The other proposals in the Consultation are:

  • Material detriment dismissals: limiting the scope for claiming unfair dismissal where it is alleged that a transfer would involve a materially detrimental change in the working conditions of the employee.
  • Collective redundancies: allow pre-transfer consultation by the transferee with the transferor's employees to count for the purposes of collective redundancy consultation.
  • Collective agreements: placing a time limit of 1 year for which terms and conditions derived from collective agreements must be observed by the transferee post-transfer.
  • Relaxation of consultation requirements for micro-businesses: employers with 10 of fewer employees would be released from the requirement to elect employee representatives (where this would have been necessary) and may deal with employees directly.
  • Better guidance: better online guidance will be introduced with a focus on problematic areas such as the meaning of assignment.

Comment

The proposed reforms of TUPE are in keeping with the Government's agenda to ease the regulatory burden on businesses and put an end to the gold-plating of EU Directives.  Whilst the Consultation sets out many proposals which will be welcomed by employers, there may also be concern that this deregulatory agenda is trumping at least some valuable law.

For example, the Government acknowledges that disclosure of ELI has positive impacts but does not work as well as it could in its present form.  Rather than change the provision to improve its operation, the proposal is to repeal the rule altogether.   The Government hopes that the repeal of the SPC rules will act as a "spur to competition within the outsourcing market".   However, a return to the pre-2006 position is unlikely to evoke memories of a "golden age" for many.  The complex factual and legal analysis required to assess whether a service provision change will fall under the scope of TUPE will not be relished by clients and contractors.

Consultation on proposed changes to TUPE 2006

 

 

As part of its ongoing review of employment law, the Government has issued a Consultation on its proposals to reform TUPE 2006.  The consultation seeks views on a variety of proposals aimed at ending the gold-plating of the Acquired Rights Directive, including a proposal to repeal the service provision change rules which were introduced in 2006.  The Consultation closes on 11 April 2013 and the Government's response is expected by 4 July 2013.  The Government has indicated that if responses support change, it will seek to implement the majority of the reforms in October 2013.

Background

In November 2011, the Government called for evidence on the effectiveness of TUPE 2006 (TUPE), due to concerns that the regulations were overly complex and that they "gold plated" the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD). The Call for Evidence focused on whether TUPE could be improved or whether guidance and best practice examples could better address the issue. The Government issued its Response to the Call for Evidence on 14 September 2012.  You can read our report on the Response here.  Despite the cautious tone of the Response on the prospects for reform of TUPE, the Consultation now proposes a number of material changes to the existing regulations.

Key proposals

Please click [here] [Debs: please can you insert a link to summary table Word doc] to view our quick reference table which summarises: (i) the areas of TUPE which are in scope for reform; (ii) the existing position and; (iii) the proposed change in each area.

The key proposals are as follows:

(i)         Repeal of the service provision change rules (SPC rules):

Have ever felt nostalgic about the operation of  service provisions changes under TUPE 1981?  If you have, you may get the chance to travel back in time as the first, and most significant, proposal in the Consultation is to repeal the service provision change rules introduced in 2006 by the Labour Government.

The SPC rules brought most service provision changes within the scope of TUPE.  In doing so, the UK went further than its obligations under the ARD, with the intention of:

  • affording greater legal certainty;
  • ending exposure to fluctuating case law;
  • creating a level playing field in the tendering process; and
  • reducing costs.

The Government considers that the SPC rules have failed to deliver the benefits originally anticipated and impose an unnecessary burden on business.  In particular, the Consultation highlights that the SPC rules:

  • act as a disincentive to service providers bidding for contracts;
  • are unhelpful to clients who wish to effect a change of personnel working on the contract and are unable to achieve this;
  • do not resolve legal uncertainties to the extent anticipated.  Whilst there is more certainty on the application of TUPE, this is outweighed by new uncertainties (e.g. on issues such as assignment and fragmentation); and
  • the need to obtain legal advice has not gone away

If implemented, the law would revert to the pre-2006 position, meaning that a service provision change would only fall within the scope of TUPE where there was: "a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity".  What this means is that there must be an organised group of staff who are assigned to a common task which is to be carried out by another employer.  There must also be a significant transfer of assets or a major part of the workforce in terms of numbers or skills.  

Pre-2006, the identification of a TUPE transfer in a service provision change scenario was a complex task, founded upon ever changing European case law.  However, the Government's view is that many of the uncertainties that existed at that time have receded as European case law has become more settled. 

Nevertheless, it seems somewhat optimistic to conclude that the repeal of the SPC rules will reduce the need for legal advice.  It will be less clear whether TUPE applies at all and advice will need to be obtained on the application of TUPE, as well as on existing areas of uncertainty such as whether an employee is assigned to the transferring part of the business.

The Government accepts that there is a need for a lead in period to allow clients and contractors time to plan for the change in the law.  The Consultation seeks views on the appropriate period (ranging from less than a year to five years or more).

(ii)         Employee Liability Information (ELI):

The next major proposal is to repeal the ELI provisions, which require the transferor to provide the transferee with specified information about the transferring employees.

In the Consultation, the Government acknowledges that it is in the interests of: (i) transferees to receive information in good time to help business planning; and (ii) employees in that it facilitates the early provision of information and consultation about the transfer.

Nevertheless, the Government identifies certain problems with the ELI provisions including that:

  • the ELI is often supplied at the very last minute (i.e. 14 days pre-transfer);
  • last minute provision of ELI means that the transferee cannot easily assess costs or communicate what measures it might need to take post-transfer.  This, in turn, has an adverse impact on employees; and
  • the categories of information are very limited.

Given the acknowledgment of the benefits of ELI, one option would be to bolster this provision by requiring earlier disclosure of better quality ELI.  However, the Government has rejected such a move on the basis that this would place a greater burden on business. 

Instead, it will be left to the parties to co-operate on the disclosure of information.  Whilst this might be achievable in many standard business transfer scenarios, this will not always be the case where there is a service provision change.  The Government acknowledges this is a problem but their position is that if the SPC rules are repealed, then the impact of losing the ELI provisions will be lessened as fewer service provision changes will be covered by TUPE. 

(iii)        Removal of provisions preventing: (a) variation of terms and conditions; and (b) dismissals, for "a reason connected to the transfer":

Fifty seven percent of respondents to the Call for Evidence thought that the lack of provision for post-transfer harmonisation of terms and conditions was a "significant burden" on business and led to a "two-tier" workforce.  Given ECJ case law on this area, the Government does not consider that permitting harmonisation is compatible with the ARD. 

Instead, it intends to remove the provision which prohibits an employer from making changes which are "connected to the transfer".  As such, varying terms and conditions will only be prevented where they are made by reason of the transfer itself.  The Government, however, sees merit in retaining the ETO exemption, which would mean that even a variation of terms to be made by reason of the transfer could potentially be valid where an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce could also be identified.

Similarly, in relation to dismissals, the proposal is to remove the prohibition on dismissals if the sole or principal reason is a reason "connected" to the transfer that is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce.  Instead, dismissals will only be prohibited where they are by reason of the transfer itself.  As for variations of terms, however, the ETO exemption would be retained, which would mean that even a dismissal by reason of the transfer could be valid where an ETO reason could be identified.

These changes will offer employers much greater flexibility to vary terms and conditions and make dismissals in a transfer situation.

(iv)        Change of location to be a valid reason for dismissal:

It is proposed that the ambit of "an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce" be expanded to include a change in location of the workforce, thereby aligning the meaning of an ETO reason with the definition of redundancy in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which permits place of work redundancies).  This would mean that dismissals by reason of a change in the location of the workforce would no longer be automatically unfair.

The Government considers that such a change would be consistent with the ARD's intention that dismissals for genuine business reasons should be permitted. 

(v)         Permit the transferor to rely on the transferee's ETO reason to justify a pre-transfer dismissal:

Currently, a transferor is unable to rely on a transferee's ETO reason to justify a pre-transfer dismissal.  As a consequence, this means that the employment relationship continues for longer than needed even though there is a valid ETO

The proposal is to allow transferor to rely on the transferee's ETO reason in order to justify a pre-transfer dismissal.  In such circumstances, the liability for the dismissal would remain with the transferor and not be inherited by the transferee.

Other proposals:

The other proposals in the Consultation are:

  • Material detriment dismissals: limiting the scope for claiming unfair dismissal where it is alleged that a transfer would involve a materially detrimental change in the working conditions of the employee.
  • Collective redundancies: allow pre-transfer consultation by the transferee with the transferor's employees to count for the purposes of collective redundancy consultation.
  • Collective agreements: placing a time limit of 1 year for which terms and conditions derived from collective agreements must be observed by the transferee post-transfer.
  • Relaxation of consultation requirements for micro-businesses: employers with 10 of fewer employees would be released from the requirement to elect employee representatives (where this would have been necessary) and may deal with employees directly.
  • Better guidance: better online guidance will be introduced with a focus on problematic areas such as the meaning of assignment.

Comment

The proposed reforms of TUPE are in keeping with the Government's agenda to ease the regulatory burden on businesses and put an end to the gold-plating of EU Directives.  Whilst the Consultation sets out many proposals which will be welcomed by employers, there may also be concern that this deregulatory agenda is trumping at least some valuable law.

For example, the Government acknowledges that disclosure of ELI has positive impacts but does not work as well as it could in its present form.  Rather than change the provision to improve its operation, the proposal is to repeal the rule altogether.   The Government hopes that the repeal of the SPC rules will act as a "spur to competition within the outsourcing market".   However, a return to the pre-2006 position is unlikely to evoke memories of a "golden age" for many.  The complex factual and legal analysis required to assess whether a service provision change will fall under the scope of TUPE will not be relished by clients and contractors.

Consultation on proposed changes to TUPE 2006

 

Find an Employment Lawyer

In all 50 U.S. states, every Canadian province, and over 135 countries. View or print a complete ELA member list by clicking here.

Find an Immigration Lawyer

Facilitate employee transfers around the globe. View or print a complete ELA member list by clicking here.

International Background Checks Summaries

Your free resource summarizing the requirements for pre-employment checks around the world.

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

As an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld
Partner 

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel

Sanmina-SCI

Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.

Starwood

We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel  

Loading...