Whilst doing the employment law module (level 5) I was reading some of the case law, in particular Enterprise Managed Services V Dance 2009, (summary here: http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Changing-employment-terms-after-a-TUPE-transfer-EAT-signals-greater-flexibility-1288.aspx) and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me a bit further.
From reading about what happened my initial thoughts were that if the employees hadn't been transferred then their terms wouldn't have been changed therefore this would have been based on the transfer. However the EAT decided differently, and decided that it was a valid productivity reason and I'm struggling to understand why/how.
I'm now a little bit confused, I know I'm probably way over simplifying (or more than likely over-thinking :)), but if someone could explain further why this decision went the way it did I would be so grateful. Am I looking at it from an incorrect perspective?
Thanks so much