Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Free webinar for job seekers on best interview answers, hosted by Goodwill June 11 You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter The Anatomy of Fear TAGSMadam C.J. WalkernetflixThe Conversation Previous articleCommunity Health Centers, Apopka – Covid-19 UpdateNext articleIn a world of trouble…goodness shines through Denise Connell RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Support conservation and fish with NEW Florida specialty license plate By Tyrone McKinley Freeman, Assistant Professor of Philanthropic Studies, Director of Undergraduate Programs, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI | The Conversation The Netflix series “Self Made: Inspired by the Life of Madam C.J. Walker” brings to life part of a fascinating rags-to-riches tale I’ve been researching for the past 10 years.Walker, widely documented to have been America’s first self-made female millionaire, made her fortune building an Indianapolis-based beauty products company that served black women across the U.S. and overseas. Today it offers a product line through Sephora.Oscar-winner Octavia Spencer stars in the miniseries about the African American entrepreneur originally named Sarah Breedlove. Born shortly after emancipation in 1867 on a cotton plantation in Louisiana to a formerly enslaved family, she later adapted the initials and last name of her third husband – played by Blair Underwood in the series. The show imagines Walker’s struggles and successes in a dramatic reinterpretation of the historical record.I’ve been studying Walker’s archival collectionsfor my upcoming book “Madam C.J. Walker’s Gospel of Giving: Black Women’s Philanthropy during Jim Crow”and speaking about her to audiences around the country for years. I screened the series with great anticipation of how her lifelong generosity and activism would be portrayed in this account that “Indianapolis Monthly” described as having “fictional characters, invented moments, and a few surreal sequences.”Her philanthropic legacy didn’t make the cut – aside from a few visual footnotes just before final credits roll. Those footnotes touch on her charitable giving to black colleges, social services and activism with the NAACP.While viewers will enjoy the series, I want them to learn that Walker didn’t just live a life of hard-won opulence. She exemplified black women’s generosity. Her philanthropy and activism imbued every aspect of her daily life. “I am not and never have been ‘close-fisted,’ for all who know me will tell you that I am a liberal hearted woman,” Walker told the audience of the 1913 National Negro League Business meeting sponsored by prominent black leader Booker T. Washington.Academy Award winner Octavia Spencer stars as Madam C.J. Walker in the Netflix miniseries ‘Self Made.’More than moneyWalker distinguished herself on a philanthropic landscape dominated by white people. Men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie turned to large-scale philanthropy after spending their lives accumulating wealth. In contrast, Walker’s giving began in earnest when she was a poor, young, widowed mother struggling in St. Louis. She gave along the way from what she had, rather than waiting.Madam C. J. Walker was the nation’s first self-made female millionaire.Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesShe had much in common with other black churchShe had much in common with other black churchwomen, club women, educators and activists. Like Mary McLeod Bethune, Nannie Helen Burroughs and Ida B. Wells-Barnett – and tens of thousands of other working and middle class black women – Walker embodied a versatile generosity that sought to meet communal needs and topple widespread discrimination.TreasureWalker was a highly prized donor in the black community. Constantly solicited, she gave money to black-serving organizations across the Midwest and the South.The Netflix miniseries briefly references her gifts to social services. She supported organizations like Flanner House in Indianapolis, which helped African Americans get jobs, an education and childcare. She made sure that poor families could eat at Christmastime.The “Indianapolis Freeman,” a black newspaper, reported in 1915 how her company’s office resembled a grocery store due to all the gift baskets that were filled with food. In 1918, she gave US$500 to support the National Association of Colored Women’s campaign to purchase and preserve Cedar Hill, home of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, which still stands today in Washington, D.C.Walker lacked formal education but she was a lifelong learner who donated thousands of dollars to the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and other black schools.She also patronized the arts, supporting Indianapolis painters such as William Edouard Scott and John Wesley Hardrick, whom she wanted to help gain national stature as an artist.Walker, second from left, and Booker T. Washington (holding his hat) at the opening of a black YMCA in Indianapolis that she supported with her own money and fundraising efforts. Madam C. J. Walker Collection, Indiana Historical Society, CC BY-NDTime and talentIn addition, Walker belonged to important networks of women that were advancing the cause of freedom from the Jim Crow era’s racism and sexism.The entrepreneur made her fortune by creating hair care products for African American women. Madam C. J. Walker Collection, Indiana Historical Society, CC BY-NC-NDShe helped the poor through the Mite Missionary Society of St. Paul’s African Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Louis. She supported the National Association of Colored Women, which provided educational and social services to black communities around the country, and advocated for changing public policies.TestimonyWalker also expressed her generosity by using her voice to speak out against the injustices of Jim Crow discrimination and oppression. She drew attention to sick and injured black soldiers during World War I by visiting and entertaining them at military camps in the Midwest. To black and white audiences, she spoke out publicly about black soldiers’ patriotic sacrifice overseas for freedoms denied them at home, and her full expectation that such freedoms be granted upon their return.The miniseries is based on a book by A’Lelia Bundles, Walker’s great-great-granddaughter. Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty ImagesAt her first national convention of her sales agents held in Philadelphia, she and her agents collectively raised their voices through a telegram against lynching sent to President Woodrow Wilson. She wanted the government to make lynching a federal crime.Walker also advocated for temperance, women’s suffrage, female empowerment and civil rights. She secured a pardon for a black man jailed for an alleged murder in Mississippi. And she shared her own encouraging story of success with audiences around the country as an affirmative testimony of the value and dignity of black life amid pervasive hateful and hurtful Jim Crow stereotypes.‘Netflix and engage’I hope that many viewers who see “Self-made” and feel inspired by Walker’s story consider a new way to binge on TV: “Netflix and Engage.”Learn more about Madam Walker’s story by reading the biographical account written by her great-great-granddaughter – the journalist, A’Lelia Bundles – which inspired the series. Explore other chapters in black women’s history.Surf Madam Walker’s electronic archive of 40,000 items at the Indiana Historical Society. Consider her influence on the musical and fashion icon Rihanna and today’s beauty culture industry. Visit her company’s former headquarters in Indianapolis. Admire the architecture of her New York mansion where women of color will be trained to become entrepreneurs.Give to charity. March for a cause.Like Walker, you may make a difference in someone’s life.This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here Octavia Spencer, left, stars in this rags-to-riches tale, along with Blair Underwood. Amanda Matlovich/Netflix LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply
Sanders Pace Architecture ArchDaily Haines Structural Group Photographs: Keith Isaacs Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Landscape: General Contractor: Manufacturers: AutoDesk, Mosa, Caesarstone, Duravit, Emtek, Heath Ceramics, LiveRoof, Montigo, Subzero/Wolf, Sun Valley Bronze, Weather Shield, Boral Tru Exterior, La Habra, Robert McNeel & Associates, Sentrigard Design Team:Brandon Pace, Daniel Jones, Michael Aktalay, Geneva Hill, Ashley E.B. PaceClients:WithheldCity:KnoxvilleCountry:United StatesMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Keith IsaacsText description provided by the architects. The transformation of a 1950’s suburban ranch house began by searching for a property without stylistically based covenants or restrictions common to many of the residential neighborhoods located within the clients targeted area. After completing an exhaustive search for properties without these limitations an intriguing property with an existing ranch house on an 8-acre ridge-top overlooking the Smoky Mountains became available.Save this picture!© Keith IsaacsEarly design studies focused on preserving the shell of the existing building and new spaces were added above and outside of the existing footprint. The additional spaces include a double height public zone overlooking a new pool and courtyard framed by single story pavilions – one for the new master suite with the other housing pool house and garage functions.Save this picture!© Keith IsaacsSave this picture!Ground floor planSave this picture!© Keith IsaacsThe existing ranch house volume and two single-story pavilions are clad in cementitious stucco with deep-set windows connected by tongue and groove ipe. The upper level addition is clad in a reverse board and batten siding adding texture and pattern which contrasts with the smooth stucco volumes.Save this picture!© Keith IsaacsAdditional Context:From the beginning it was clear that the project would become a crash course for the owners and the architect in the challenges of building a modern home in suburbia – context that consists primarily of builder tract sites, speculative semi-custom homes, and a network of gated communities with super-sized custom houses sited on divided estate-sized lots. Over the course of two years, the architect worked closely with the owner to review neighborhood covenants and restrictions while also meeting with HOA design review boards and committees.Save this picture!© Keith IsaacsThe focus of this effort was to serve as an advocate for the client’s resources and help them to prevent an investment in a site that wouldn’t allow them to build the simple and appropriately modern home for them and their young family. After an initial concept design effort proved that neighborhood selected by the clients would not be a good fit for the project, the architect then recommended looking at older ranch homes that could be adapted and transformed into the type of home they desired. The owner and architect’s patience and commitment throughout this 4-year process led to a project that is a refreshing departure from projects typically found within this context.Save this picture!© Keith IsaacsProject gallerySee allShow lessHouse at Kalalgoda / Damith Premathilake ArchitectsSelected ProjectsMishel House / Zozaya ArquitectosSelected Projects Share “COPY” Area: 4680 ft² Year Completion year of this architecture project 2019 Projects Architects: Sanders Pace Architecture Area Area of this architecture project Save this picture!© Keith Isaacs+ 22Curated by Paula Pintos Share ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/937140/calloway-ridge-house-sanders-pace-architecture Clipboard Calloway Ridge House / Sanders Pace ArchitectureSave this projectSaveCalloway Ridge House / Sanders Pace Architecture Structural Engineering: Year: Purvis Builders United States Stephen W. Hackney Landscape Architects CopyHouses, Renovation, Houses Interiors•Knoxville, United States CopyAbout this officeSanders Pace ArchitectureOfficeFollowProductsWoodConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesRefurbishmentRenovationInterior DesignResidential InteriorsHouse InteriorsKnoxvilleOn FacebookUnited StatesPublished on April 08, 2020Cite: “Calloway Ridge House / Sanders Pace Architecture” 08 Apr 2020. ArchDaily. Accessed 10 Jun 2021.
18 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Tagged with: Consulting & Agencies Digital Technology AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AK Consultancies Ltd (AKC) is now offering remote live demos online of their software products, including the Fundraiser and Beneficiaries family of products.The new service replaces the company’s previous rolling demonstrations.AKC are this year celebrating their tenth anniversary of supplying software and services to charities. To mark the occasion they are offering a 10% discount to all new clients until the end of 2005. Advertisement Howard Lake | 19 January 2005 | News AK Consultancies Ltd offers remote live demos of fundraising software
SHARE A delegation of Chinese soybean buyers cutting a swath through parts of the United States included Indiana in their tour Saturday and Sunday. The group visited Kokomo Grain and the farms of Indiana Soybean Alliance directors Scott Fritz in Winamac, Kevin Wilson in Galveston and Gary Lamie in Westpoint, southwest of Lafayette.One buyer at Lamie’s farm said he was quite impressed with Indiana farmers, their hospitality and their operations. He and the other buyers are also impressed with the beans they have seen in the fields, easing some of their concerns about the drought’s impact on bean supplies and quality this year.“When they would break open the pods they were measuring the size of the seeds quite a bit and seemed to be impressed with the size. They look at the drought map online a lot, so they had a lot of curiosity about just how severe is the drought and what kind of yields we’re going to have. I think they were impressed with the ability of our soybeans to put on pods since the August rains started and recover, more or less, and add yield.”Hosting foreign customers on his farm is something Lamie has done previously. He says it’s good business, and this Chinese group represents a lot of business.“I think this group is responsible for buying most of the soybeans that China does, so it’s always good to learn about your good customers. And it’s important for them to feel comfortable with us and the way we do things.”China is an important market for Indiana soybeans and they imported 895 million bushels of soybeans last year. That represents more than half of all U.S. soybean exports.After Sunday’s final Indiana stop it was on to Illinois for the delegation. Indiana Soybean Alliance hosted the visit in conjunction with the U.S. Soybean Export Council.Lamie said he has not yet started bean harvest but expects to later this week. He spent three days shelling corn last week, “and I’ve been very pleasantly surprised thus far both with yield and test weights. And I have not any issues with aflatoxin, so I’ve been very happy.”So far yields are averaging 143 bushels per acre with moisture at 16 to 18 percent. He has taken it all to the elevator where quality tests are good.[audio:https://www.hoosieragtoday.com//wp-content/uploads//2012/09/Chinese-buyers-vist-IN-soybean-fiedls.mp3|titles=Chinese buyers vist IN soybean fields]Hear the full HAT interview with Lamie:[audio:https://www.hoosieragtoday.com//wp-content/uploads//2012/09/Gary-Lamie-on-Chinese-soybean-buyer-visit.mp3|titles=Gary Lamie on Chinese soybean buyer visit]Audio Playerhttps://media.blubrry.com/hoosieragtoday/p/www.hoosieragtoday.com//wp-content/uploads//2012/09/Chinese-buyers-vist-IN-soybean-fiedls.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.Podcast: Play in new window | Download | EmbedSubscribe: RSS Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter By Andy Eubank – Sep 24, 2012 SHARE Previous articleHSUS Files Suit, NPPC Calls it a Bullying TacticNext articlePresidential Candidates Respond to Farm Bureau Questions Andy Eubank Chinese Soybean Buyers Pleased with Indiana Beans Home News Feed Chinese Soybean Buyers Pleased with Indiana Beans
Facebook Previous articleDestiny awaits for golden generationNext articleWendi Peter’s Mrs. Whippy admin Advertisement Email McInerney’s build for futureDESPITE the downturn in the economy, McInerney’s have expressed a confidence in the future of the housing market with a planning application to Limerick County Council for a major development at Annacotty/ Monaleen, where they already have a strong presence.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up They have made application to construct 174 residential dwellings, consisting of 13 detached houses, 88 semi-detached houses, 47 townhouses and 26 (2 and 3 bedroom) apartments, car parking and associated site works at Bloomfield, Annacotty.Cargo services boost for ShannonSHANNON airport has announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with Lynxs Group, a Texas-based international cargo facility company with major operations in North America and Europe. Under the agreement, both companies will jointly explore the development of a major cargo facility at Shannon Airport, which is owned by the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA). The agreement represents a significant step towards the development of a thriving cargo operation at Shannon, utilising state-of-the-art facilities in an airport with one of the longest runways in Europe.Kilteely accidentFIFTY-five year-old Jack Ryan, from Knockderk, Pallasgreen, became Limerick’s latest road casualty when he died following an accident in Kilteely, at the weekend.He was struck by a car on Church Road and was pronounced dead at the scene.Limerick puts best foot forwardLIMERICK put its best foot forward on St Patrick’s Day for the annual parade, with upwards of 40,000 having lined city streets.Thankfully, the weather was also at its best, helping to add to the enjoyment.Carey’s Road born Emma O’Driscoll, who first hit the limelight with pop group Six, and is now a TV personality, was Grand Marshal, and led the parade with six-year-old Cian Casey, honoured to be the first ever Junior Marshal. Cian is from Castleconnell.A feature of the event was the participation of supporters from various rugby clubs, adding to Limerick’s ‘red army’ reputation.Mayor Cllr John Gilligan described it as an extremely proud day for the city, a view echoed by organiser Fran O’Donnell, who thanked all those who had given voluntarily of their services.Daffodil Day FridayTHE IRISH Cancer Society is looking for public support during it’s major fundraising event, Daffodil Day, to be held on Friday.The society is especially interested in hearing from anyone in Limerick who is willing to act as a volunteer selling daffodils in the community or workplace.Last year, the Society raised four million euro nationwide from the Daffodil Day campaign, and they hope to do even better in 2009.Further information on becoming a volunteer is available on CallSave 1850 606060. Print WhatsApp Linkedin Twitter NewsLocal NewsNews in briefsBy admin – March 19, 2009 584
Proceedures and appointments cancelled again at UHL Surgeries and clinic cancellations extended Walk in Covid testing available in Limerick from Saturday 10th April First Irish death from Coronavirus WhatsApp Shannondoc operating but only by appointment TAGSfeatured NewsBreaking news#BREAKING Two rescued from Limerick City apartment fireBy Staff Reporter – December 19, 2015 834 RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Print Previous articleLimerick man jailed for abusing his daughter and destroying her lifeNext articleTall tales of Goldilock’s blonde ambition Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Andrew [email protected] up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up TWO people who became trapped in a second floor apartment fire in Limerick have been taken to hospital after firefighters from the Limerick City Fire and Rescue took them out from the blaze this Saturday night.Shortly after 10pm, two units from the Limerick City Fire and Rescue, together with the aerial platform unit, were called to a fire at an apartment of Catherine Street.The scene at the apartment stairs on Catherine Street. Photo from @LimerickFireOn arrival, the crews found that the apartment had filled with smoke trapping the two inside.Equipped with specialist breathing apparatus units, two teams of firefighters entered the burning building and quickly located a man and a woman on the second floor.The woman was found to be unconscious and both were evacuated and transferred to awaiting emergency paramedics.The two people have been brought to University Hospital Limerick where their condition is unknown at present. Linkedin Advertisement No vaccines in Limerick yet Facebook Twitter Email
Your Economy & Development news is made possible with support from: Route 10: Timing changes to cluster buses before morning class times to provide capacity when and where needed.Route 11, 11N & 11S: Two new configurations of the route 11 will provide more customized service to South Hill and Ithaca College at night on weekends:Route 11 will operate Mon. through Fri. until just after 9 p.m.Route 11N is a night night-time route that will connect South Hill and IC with the Commons and Collegetown. It will operate hourly Mon-Wed and every 30 minutes Thurs-Sat.Route 11S replaces the previous route 11 weekend service.Route 13: Minor timing changes. Outbound service to Stewart Park will be demand only. Please let the driver know when you board that Stewart Park is your destination.Route 14 & 14S: No changes to route 14, but route 14S has minor timing changes on the first three trips on weekdays to avoid overlap with the route 14.Route 15: Three half-hour Saturday trips were removed because the new route 11S will provide a very similar service. For more convenient weekend access to shopping, look to use both the 15 and 11S.Route 20: Third trip will serve West Campus.Route 22: Summer-only weekday route ends Fri., Aug. 23. Last day for Sat. service is Aug. 24. Stay tuned for next summer.Route 21: Minor timing adjustments.Route 30: Weekend service returns. College Ave. detour will continue: outbound service rerouted to Ithaca Rd. to Oak Ave. and inbound service detoured onto Dryden Rd.; to Elmwood Ave.; to Ithaca Rd.Route 31: Added a 9 p.m. outbound trip due to rider input.Route 32: Outbound service to Northwood added in the p.m. College Ave detour on Ithaca Rd. and Hoy Rd. will continue.Route 36: Added short trips inbound in the a.m. to form better connections between northern Fall Creek neighborhood and Cornell. TCAT will gauge success, based on ridership. Minor timing adjustments.Route 37: Timing adjustments to improve on-time performance.Route 40: Timing adjustments to accommodate detour around Freeville SR38 bridge construction project.Route 41: Mid-day trip adjustments.Route 43: Minor timing adjustments. Inbound express in p.m. will stop in Varna due to rider input.Route 51: Service along Maple Ave on weekends will be discontinued for the academic year.Route 52: Fourth trip will serve West Campus. Last two trips inbound will end at the Vet School and continue downtown as a route 67. Minor timing adjustments.Route 53: No changesRoute 65: Aurora St detour ends, and route will no longer run on Hudson St., resulting in route timing changes. The Danby Park n’ Ride now officially moved to Dotson Park, located across Danby Town Hall.Route 67: Minor timing adjustments.Route 70: College Ave.detour will continue: outbound service runs on Ithaca Rd. to Oak Ave., and inbound service runs on Dryden Rd.; to Elmwood Ave.; to Ithaca Rd.Route 72: Outbound service to Northwood added in the p.m. College Ave. detour on Ithaca Rd. and Hoy Rd. will continue.Route 74: One trip added on Saturday due to rider feedback. Minor timing adjustments.Route 75: No changes.Route 77: No changes.Route 81: Due to North Campus construction, trip times have been adjusted. TCAT added off-peak direction trips on the schedule.Route 82: Trips after 10 a.m will operate every 11 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. TCAT expects this to be a temporary change until the end of the first part of fall service ending Oct. 26.Route 83: Change in route alignment: the 83 will now travel between North Campus and Central Campus from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays. TCAT advises West Campus riders to use route 10, the route 36 and specific trips of the routes 20, 37, and 52 that will serve Baker Flagpole in the a.m. on weekdays.Route 90: Change in route alignment. For those who previously used route 90 to travel between Downtown and Collegetown or Cornell at night, please refer to the 11N. Connections between the 11N and the 90 will be available at Schwartz Center for Performing Arts.Route 92: Route returns to academic year service.Route 93: Route returns to academic year service.Additional information is available on TCAT’s website, and the bus tracker site can be used to check real-time arrivals and departures. Devon Magliozzi Tagged: bus schedule, fall service, TCAT, transportation TOMPKINS COUNTY, N.Y. — TCAT will launch its fall schedule on Sunday, adding more bus routes as students return to Cornell University and Ithaca College. This year, though, there will be an additional phase of service changes in October when nine new buses come online.“A second fall service period will allow us to adjust the schedules and add more capacity if we see problems developing in early fall,’’ Assistant General Manager Matt Yarrow, who oversees TCAT’s transit development and planning, said in a media release.The first fall service period will run from Aug. 25 through Oct. 26. As usual, the fall schedule includes adjustments to timing and routes based on TCAT’s resources and shifts in ridership.Ithaca College students will have access to two new routes served by the Route 11 bus. In addition to Route 11 trips between the college and the Commons, a nighttime 11N bus will run between Ithaca College and Collegetown by way of the Commons, with trips until about 1:50 a.m. on weekends. In addition, an 11S weekend shopper will bring students directly from campus to Wegmans, Tops and Walmart on Saturdays and Sundays.Related: TCAT to eliminate Zone 2 fares, reducing costs for rural ridersRiders who board TCAT outside the central Ithaca zone will see fares drop on Sunday, as TCAT’s new unified fare structure takes effect. TCAT announced earlier this summer that it would eliminate its zone system, which charged higher fares for riders traveling into Ithaca from outlying parts of the county. Beginning Sunday, all fares will be $1.50 for a single adult ride, or 75 cents for seniors, youths and people with disabilities. The value of existing zone 2 passes will be automatically converted into rides or days at the new rate.Riders should expect another round of service adjustments to take effect Oct. 27 through Jan. 18. At that point, nine new buses will replace unreliable older buses in TCAT’s fleet. According to a media release, TCAT will take possession of the new buses in September and then will work to install GPS and fare box equipment and to get them inspected by the New York State Department of Transportation. The agency says the new buses be put into service as soon as possible to fill in gaps caused by its aging fleet.“Instead of waiting for winter service in January, TCAT’s service development team opted for a midway redesign to plug in any service gaps. And by that time they will have more confidence in knowing TCAT’s increasingly unreliable older buses – a big chunk of its 50-plus fleet – will be swapped out with nine brand new road-ready New Flyer 40-foot buses to replace increasingly unreliable old buses,” a media release reads.Here’s a full list of the fall service changes that will take effect Sunday: Devon Magliozzi is a reporter for the Ithaca Voice. Questions? Story tips? Contact her at [email protected] or 607-391-0328. More by Devon Magliozzi
Previous Article Next Article So far, so badOn 1 Feb 2000 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. The law on transfer of undertakings has taken more confusing turns,especially in relation to dismissal. Sue Nickson explains how matters standThe Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations 1981,known as Tupe, incorporated into UK law the rights of staff on the transfer ofa business contained in the Acquired Rights directive 1977. This is an extremely complex area of the law, in which organisations haveencountered further difficulties by the differing approaches of the European andUK courts and cases such as Suzen, Whitehouse and Kerry Foods that have buckedestablished trends. In such an environment, organisations need to be fullyinformed and make use of the protection of indemnities and warranties to ensurethey avoid falling foul of the regulations, particularly in relation to unfairdismissals and the costly consequences that can follow. So what is an undertaking and when is there a relevant transfer? Anundertaking is defined as including any trade or business. Case law shows thatthis can also include charities and professional practices. Tupe can also coverthe transfer of part of an undertaking – that is, a division or unit of anorganisation that is self-contained and operates autonomously. What is a transfer? Regulation 3(1) confirms that a relevant transfer forthe purposes of applying Tupe is a “transfer from one person to another ofan undertaking situated immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdomor a part of one which is so situated.” When looking at whether there has been a transfer of an undertaking or part,the basic test is whether the undertaking retains its identity and is carriedon by the transferee. The Spijkers case (Jozef Maria Antonious Spijkers vGebroeders Abattoir CV and Alfred Benedik en Zoinen BV, 1986, 2 CMLR 486) setout the factors to consider when answering this question, and they include: – The type of undertaking – Whether tangible assets transfer – The value of intangible assets – Whether the majority of employees transfer – Similarity between activities before and after the transfer – The duration of any suspension in activities These factors should be considered together as an overall assessment of thesituation. The application of this test by both the European Court of Justiceand the UK courts in attempting to follow the ECJ’s thinking has varied overtime. The ECJ took a narrower approach to the Spijkers test, particularly inthe Suzen case (Suzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice,1997, IRLR 255), where the ECJ stated that the Acquired Rights directive didnot automatically apply to a change of contractors. As a result of thisdecision it seemed that there would only be a transfer if there was a transferof significant tangible or intangible assets or a taking over by the newemployer of a major part of the workforce, in terms of numbers and skills. Since 1997, there have been a lot of cases heard by both the ECJ and the UKcourts, and while the ECJ appears to have maintained its position set out in Suzen,the UK courts have, more recently, taken a less restrictive view. In the main,recent cases have been based on the premise that whether employees transfer isjust one of the several Spijker factors that need to be considered, and is notdecisive in itself. Even where there has been a careful analysis of whether there is anidentifiable stable economic entity which has transferred or is capable oftransferring, in some cases there will be no definitive conclusion as towhether there is a transfer for Tupe purposes. This is simply because of thelack of clarity in this area of the legislation. It is therefore advisable toconsider ensuring provisions are built into commercial deals which achieve thecompany’s business objectives and protect its interests. Who and what transfers? Regulation 5 provides that from the point oftransfer, all those employees who were employed by the transferor immediatelybefore the transfer and whose contracts of employment would otherwise have beenterminated by the transfer, automatically become employees of the transferee onthe same terms and conditions they had previously enjoyed. Regulation 5 makesit clear that employees transfer on the same terms and conditions, except forany terms relating to occupational pension schemes. Varying such terms and conditions is problematic for the new employer, asdemonstrated in the case of Wilson and others v St Helens Borough Council,1998, 3 WLR 1070 HL, which decided that a variation of an employee’s terms andconditions for a reason connected with the transfer was ineffective. Thisfollowed a previous ECJ case known as the Daddy Dance Halls case, whichprecluded even consensual variations. Any variations must therefore be for operational or efficiency reasons otherthan the transfer, so that any resulting claim for unfair or constructivedismissal will be subject to the normal unfair dismissal rules and will not be”automatically” unfair as discussed in the panel, right. Allowing fora time lapse between the transfer and the changes may minimise the inferencethat the changes are transfer-related. Regulation 5 also provides for “all the transferor’s rights, powers,duties and liabilities under or in connection with any such contract” tobe transferred to the transferee “on the completion of a relevanttransfer”. The extent of this regulation again emphasises the need for apotential purchaser to carry out detailed enquiries before any purchase,providing protection wherever possible via warranties and indemnities. Dismissals Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) are the relevant regulations. Regulation 8(1) states: “where either before or after a relevanttransfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, thatemployee shall be treatedÉ as unfairly dismissed if the transfer or a reasonconnected with it is the reason or principal reason for dismissal.” Regulation 8(2) states: “where an economic, technical or organisationalreason entailing changes in the workforce of either the transferor or thetransferee before or after a relevant transfer is the reason or principalreason for dismissing an employee, paragraph 1 above shall not apply to hisdismissal; but without prejudice to the… [test of fair dismissal], thedismissal shall… be regarded as having been for a substantial reason of a kindsuch as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which thatemployee held.” There are several important issues that arise from these two regulations.First, is a dismissal for a transfer-related reason effective? It wasestablished by the House of Lords in the cases of Meade v British Fuels andBaxendale v British Fuels, 1998, 1998, ICR 1141 HL, that dismissals for reasonsconnected with transfers were effective although potentially unfair. Second, in what circumstances will the transfer or a reason connected withit be the reason or principal reason for the dismissal? Many of the cases thathave looked at this area have involved insolvency and have found that it is notnecessary for a transferee to have been identified at the time of a dismissalfor it to be connected with the transfer. Alternatively, there has been case law that establishes that the fact thatthere had not been an offer to purchase the business at the time of thedismissals means the dismissals could not be for a reason connected with thetransfer. Recently, however, in the case of Morris v John Grose Group, 1998,1998, ICR 655, the EAT has shown a preference for the former of these twoapproaches. What amounts to an ETO? The concept of “economic, technical ororganisational reason” has been taken from the Acquired Rights directive.Its precise meaning is uncertain, but what is clear is that the ETO reason must”entail changes in the workforce” and reasons such as redundancy andbusiness reorganisations have been held to amount to ETO reasons. Many questions arise from this concept, such as what is the position of atransferee or transferor who argues that a dismissal was at the insistence ofthe other party? Also, can the employer argue that they had to dismiss theemployee, otherwise the sale would not have gone ahead? Before the case of Whitehouse v Blatchford & Sons, 1999, IRLR 492 – theWhitehouse case – it was well established in cases such as Wheeler v Patel andanother 1987, ICR 631 and IRLR 211, that a dismissal to achieve a sale or anincreased price for an undertaking is not an ETO, and that instead an ETOreason must be one that relates to the actual conduct of the business. The Whitehouse case significantly widened the interpretation of the ETOreason. In that case the transferor, a hospital, made it a condition ofawarding the contract that the transferee, the incoming contractor, wouldreduce the number of employees by one to reduce the price of the contract. Whenan employee was subsequently dismissed by the contractor, the EAT held thatdismissal was for an ETO reason. In other words, despite previously wellestablished case law, an ETO reason had been found where the incomingcontractor had reduced the price by dismissing one of the employees, with theclear motive of obtaining the contract. Sue Nickson is a partner in the employment law unit at Hammnond Suddards The state of playThe current position can be summarised as follows:– If the main reason for a dismissal is the transfer, then the dismissalwill be automatically unfair.– If the main reason for the dismissal is an ETO reason, then the dismissalis potentially fair, subject to the usual principles of fairness being adheredto.– If an employee is dismissed by the transferor and the main reason for thedismissal was an ETO reason rather than the transfer itself, the dismissedemployee’s remedy will be against only the transferor and not the transferee.Tupe could now apply to transfers within a groupFollowing a potentially alarming ECJ ruling at the end of 1999, companiesplanning to reorganise workforce structures in their group will be concerned tohear that all the Tupe rules, including the duty to consult trade unions or setup elections for employee representatives, could apply to transfers of staffwithin the group. The costs of not observing the rules are high. Since November1999, companies failing to consult in this way can now be fined up to 13 weeks’uncapped pay for each employee affected.The ECJ, in Allen v Amalgamated Constructions Co, Times Law Review, 10 Dec1999, decided that the Acquired Rights directive could apply to a transferbetween subsidiary companies in a group which were distinct legal persons withseparate employment relations with their staff, even if the companies had thesame ownership, management and premises and were engaged in the same work.The facts are rather complex. When AMCO’s subsidiary ACC won a drivagecontract from a colliery owner, it subcontracted the work to another subsidiarycompany, AMS, to take advantage of lower labour costs. Certain ACC staff weredismissed and re-employed by AMS on worse terms and conditions. When thesubcontract was cancelled, ACC carried out the drivage work and re-engaged theemployees on worse terms than their previous employment with ACC, but betterthan AMS.The employer argued that Tupe would not apply because all its subsidiariesin effect had the same employer. The ECJ rejected the argument and said thedirective would apply where, following a legal transfer or merger, there was achange in the natural or legal person responsible for carrying on the businesswho, by virtue of that fact, incurred the obligations of an employer towardsemployees of the undertaking. This would apply regardless of whether ownershipof the undertaking was transferred.Since the directive covered any legal change in the person of the employer,if other conditions were also met it could apply to a transfer betweensubsidiary companies in a group. The fact the subsidiaries shared the sameownership, management and premises made no difference.To assess whether there had been a transfer, the decisive criterion waswhether the entity in question retained its identity – that is, was itsoperation actually continued or resumed? The term “entity” referredto an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of aneconomic activity which pursued a specific objective. It was for the employmenttribunal to decide whether the drivage work carried out by the ACC wasorganised in the form of an economic entity before ACC subcontracted the workto AMS.While it has always been appreciated that Tupe applies to transfers ofbusiness within a group, the significance of this decision lies in thepotentially wider application of Tupe to group organisations which, on the faceof it, appear only to involve transfers of staff between group companies. Thedecision may also affect share sales which, technically, are not caught byTupe. Tactics such as hiving off staff into a subsidiary prior to selling acompany’s shares are unlikely in the future to avoid Tupe applying. Employersmust be constantly wary about Tupe implications when reorganising theirworkforces within the group.Tupe’s regulations on dismissalWhat is the relationship between regulations 8(1) and 8(2)? The traditionalapproach to the relationship between these regulations has been as follows:Is the transfer or a reason connected with it the reason or main reason fordismissal?If the answer is no, Tupe does not apply and the fairness of the dismissalwill be governed by the normal rules. If the answer is yes, consider the nextquestion.Is the dismissal for an “economic, technical or organisational reasonentailing changes in the workforce” – the ETO reason?If the answer is no, the dismissal is automatically unfair, and a dismissedemployee with the requisite one-year qualifying period can bring an unfairdismissal claim. If the answer is yes, go to the next question.Is the dismissal procedurally fair in accordance with the normal standardsof reasonableness required by the Employment Rights Act 1996?If the answer is no, the dismissal is unfair. If the answer is yes, it isfair.This traditional approach that regulations 8(1) and (2) are not mutuallyexclusive had been followed until the Whitehouse case mentioned above. In thiscase, however, the Court of Appeal found the reduction in the number of staffwould have taken place whether the incoming contractor had won the contract ornot, and therefore the transfer of the undertaking was the occasion for thereduction but was not the cause or the reason for the reduction. This impliesthat the dismissal is either for a reason connected with the transfer withinregulation 8(1) or for an ETO reason contained within regulation 8(2) andcannot be both. Despite the controversy the Whitehouse case has attracted, the Court ofAppeal’s approach has been followed in the case of Kerry Foods v Creber andothers, 1999, EAT 1379/97 and 939/98. In this case, a family-owned sausagecompany got into financial difficulties. A receiver was appointed and staffwere dismissed shortly before the business was sold to Kerry Foods. On appeal, it was held that there was a Tupe transfer and that the mainreason for the dismissals was the transfer as opposed to any ETO reason. Thecourt further concluded the following:– All dismissals are effective in terminating the employment relationship,as previously mentioned and established in Wilson v St Helens Borough Council,1998.– A dismissal by the transferor by reason of the transfer will beautomatically unfair.– Such dismissed employees will have a right of action in respect of thedismissal against the transferee, as stated in the Litster case – Litster vForth Dry Dock & Engineering Co, 1989, ICR 341 – and therefore called theLitster principle.– If an ETO reason is the main reason for the dismissal, regulation 8(1)will not apply and neither will the Litster principle.It is only when regulation 8(1) applies that the Litster principle alsoapplies. Therefore if the reason for the dismissal is an ETO reason but thedismissal is still unfair, the position in the last point above applies and theemployee will only be able to recover from the transferor. The court reachedthis conclusion on the basis that the Litster principle is not relevant to thefairness of the dismissal, but only when looking at the reason for dismissal.If the transferee dismisses, then the employee’s remedy is against thetransferee. The transferee can dismiss by reason either of the transfer or foran ETO reason. Related posts:No related photos.