Impaled on law's fine point
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO employers were treated as being associated if one company'. had indirectly or directly control of the other, or both companies, were directly or indirectly controlled by a third party; and a change of ownership had to be distinguished from a mere change of tills' ownership of the assets of a company.
These points were made by a Birmingham industrial tribunal when it ruled that lorry driver A. V. Palmer was not entitled to claim a redundancy payment from either Edward Oliver Ltd or Regis Plant Hire Ltd.
The tribunal heard that Mr Palmer had started work on March 6, 1978, with Edward Oliver Ltd, driving a vehicle moving hard core from a quarry. In 1978 the company became aware that the work was not profitable and decided to pull out, going into liquidation on October 17, 1979.
In October 1978 it sold the plant equipment and lorries engaged on the quarry work to Regis Plant Hire for £20,000 — the sale of the specific items being invoiced at that price. There was no elemrnt of goodwill in that price and the liquidator himself said that as far as he could tell the sale involved the true value of the items sold.
Regis Plant Hire had been formed earlier in 1978 by Peter Sicley who had been the bookkeeper/accountant of Edward Oliver Ltd, but never a director. The principal shareholder in Edward Oliver was W. E. Oliver who was also a director of Regis Plant Hire. Mr Palmer said that he had been told by Mr Oliver in January 1979 that he had been transferred to the new company. He knew nothing of the change until three months after it had taken place and he had carried on doing exactly the same jcla throughout.
Mr Palmer's employment t+-minated when Regis Plant Hire went into liquidation in consequence of an action brought against it by Edward Oliv. r Limited for the unpaid balance of the £20,000 and other items.
Mr Palmer was employed by Regis for less than the two yealrs required for redundancy pay; but the tribunal ruled he would be entitled to redundancy payment if the two companies were "associated employers" or there had been a change in ownership of the business.
This was not a situaticin, however, in which the corinpanies could be regarded as sociated employers" and it appeared that a mere change in the ownership of the assets h d taken place rather than of t ownership of the business.
A successful claim for a red ndancy payment against Edward Oliver could have been made by Mr Palmer, but there was a tiMe limit of six months for su claim, which could be extend for a further six months in so circumstances.
Mr Palmer's employment Edward Oliver ended on vember 6, 1978 and his cla was not presented until vember 27, 1980. The tribu thus had no power to awar redundancy payment to made by Edward Oliver.