Employees’ protection against dismissal also in pre-packs! What does this mean in practice?
According to a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice, the rules applying to transfer of undertaking shall also apply to pre-pack regimes. By this, the Court follows the conclusion of the Advocate General we discussed earlier.
In the event of a transfer of undertaking all rights and duties of the employees arising from the employment contracts with the disposing company will be transferred automatically to the acquiring company. Besides, it is prohibited to dismiss employees because of the transfer.
In case a company has been declared bankrupt, the employees do not enjoy protection against dismissal, also in case of a relaunch of the company. The relaunching party therefore does not have to take over the (rights of) employees.
In a pre-pack, the relaunch of a company will be prepared in detail even before bankruptcy proceedings start. That way, a quick relaunch can be made when the company is declared bankrupt. Due to the bankruptcy there is no transfer of undertaking and thus protection against dismissal will not apply.
Employee organisations are of the opinion however that pre-packs are misused as a quick and cheap way to reorganise companies without having to take into account employees’ rights and without having to rely on the permission for dismissal of the employees from the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency). Will employees now be protected because of transfer of undertaking in a pre-pack?
The European Court has recently decided that the rules for transfer of undertaking apply to pre-packs and that the exception regarding prohibition of dismissal due to bankruptcy does not apply. Why?
A pre-pack aims at het relaunch of the company, not its liquidation. Therefore, it is not subject to the exception in case of bankruptcy, even if the relaunch is aimed at paying as much as possible to the creditors.
The Court also attaches great importance to the absence of formal supervision in pre-pack, as opposed to bankruptcy. In practice, the pre-pack is realized with a trustee under supervision of a bankruptcy judge but officially they only have influence when bankruptcy has been pronounced.
What are the consequences of the ruling of the court in practice? The pre-pack regime and thus the take-over of an undertaking with a view to a re-launch will become less attractive. After all, the acquiring company will have to take over the entire personnel while maintaining the terms of the employment.
Therefore, the legislator will have to consider what will happen to the intended statutory basis of the pre-pack regime.
Would you like to learn more about pre-packs and the consequences of the decision for this regime? Do you have any questions about the rules regarding transfer of undertaking? We will gladly answer your questions! Please contact us:
A surprising judgment – on how a company does not fall under the pre-pack regime and the new organisation does not have to take over the staff.
Do you intend to take over (part of) a business by means of a pre-pack? If so, do you have to take over the employees too?
Planning a merger, acquisition or division of (part of) a business in the Netherlands or any other EU country? Be aware of the EU law which sets out the strong position of employees in case of a transfer of undertaking (Directive 2001/23/EC). This time: Do the rules regarding transfer of undertaking also apply in case of bankruptcy?
On-call contracts offer many advantages for both employers and on-call employees. However, there are also a few rules that they need to take into account. What are they?
The government wants to improve the legal position of flex workers with a new law. What will it mean for employers and flex workers if the legislative proposal is adopted? What new rules will you need to take into account?
A new law stipulates that self-employed persons earning less than 38 euros per hour are, in principle, deemed to be employees. What does this mean for contractors and their clients? What exceptions might there be to this legal presumption based on an hourly rate?
