It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
If the incoming contract firm is based in a different building or a different town, they could argue that your job role no longer exists. If this is the case, the conversation between you and your current employer will have been restricted to calculating redundancy settlements.
Probably best to read up on the acas.org.uk website.
The issue is the work that is currently being done by 3-4 people on a single site by a single employer, will likely now be spread across far more sites/employers acting as subcontractors to the new contract holder, so although the same job roles/work will still exist, they won't be full time roles as such.
We're waiting on more information, as we've only been told about the contract ending, but it still has a reasonable period left to run, so management are still to have the discussions about what the transition arrangements are going to be.
I know for me personally, I'd be taking the money and running as quickly and as far as possible, but others are more worried about what's going to happen, and the mention of TUPE has them concerned as nobody really knows whether it would be required.
I guess people can be very happy with where they arrive after TUPE but my experience of it is largely it's just a way not to be unemployed whilst you look for another job.
Sorry, from the sound of it you are waiting on your employer to work it out and tell you. It's their responsibility so it's a waiting game unfortunately.
(Not doubting you btw, just asking for my own clarity).
I understand TUPE where Co A buys Co B and then has an obligation to Co B's employees, and have managed acquisitions where those obligations were carefully adhered to!
But if Co B wins a contract from Co A to supply goods/services to a customer/market, I'd have expected Co B to have its own employees (or contractors in this case) in place, ready to provide those goods/services.
If Co B is obliged, under TUPE, to take on Co A's existing employees (benefits, etc), then the opportunity for Co B to offer a cheaper and/or better service to the customer by operating more efficiently or using more skilled staff (or whatever) would be constrained by those obligations to Co A's employees.
I'd have thought Co A would have a number of redundant roles as a result of losing the contract.
At the moment all we can do is wait until we know more. I was just trying to understand a bit more about the potential options, but it appears nobody really knows about this kind of scenario, but I suspect the new supplier will do their best to avoid TUPE being an option.
Even when we were sold off a few years ago, nothing changed other than the pension scheme.
I suspect there is a certain management group who would love to cut costs, but they've avoided doing it as they know they'd lose a lot of the experienced staff, and recruitment has been very problematic lately,
Current staff is pretty well split between us long termers who stick it out for the short hours and benefits, and the short termers who've been tempted by longer hours with less benefits, but aren't skilled enough to make more money elsewhere.
If I wanted to remain in the industry, I could walk into another job tomorrow for 10-30k more, but I'd have to sell my soul and work as many hours as possible.
Your role is protected. The company bidding for the contract will have been provided with your ELI data and they have to provide for every role listed therein.
This doesn't mean that they will not have a strategy to save money in the medium long term. I've been on that side of things too.
What they can't do is say that they are going to do it differently so they don't need you. If the contract has changed hands, they have no choice. If by some skulduggery the contract has not been won, "new work" is being done and TUPE doesn't apply, then you simply remain in the employ of your current company doing your current job. (Which wouldn't exist in your case hence skullduggery, and I doubt they could get away with it).
We were notified two months ago that numerous depots would be closing at the end of September, however with two weeks to go until closure, discussions are still on going.
The incoming service provider have only sent their employment legal representatives to any meeting regarding staff. They are arguing that TUPE does not apply, as they are providing a different service.
Every other lawyer involved says rewording what they're providing while still essentially providing the same service doesn't mean TUPE does not apply, and there apparently is case law to support this, however they are steadfast in their opinion, despite three other legal teams saying otherwise (Our current employer's, our union's, and the customer's).
However we had it confirmed this week that the customer is contractually liable for any costs in relation to them taking the work elsewhere. But, they are arguing that they are not liable for all the costs in relation my employer deciding to close depots, and only liable for the percentage of work done for them in relation to the total amount of work we done.
So as it stands we're looking at either accepting a pro-rated (to the amount of work we done for the customer) contractual redundancy package funded by the customer, which they'll sweeten by also offering to pay full notice pay, or as of the end of the month, our employment stops with no notice or redundancy pay, and everything ends up in court.
8 working days before the contract ended, we were finally offered a Settlement Agreement, however only for a percentage of our contracted redundancy. The big argument being around notice periods and pay.
My then employer refused to contribute anything, as they argued it would undermine their stance on TUPE applying.
And the new supplier simply continued to reject that TUPE applied.
The union were quite honest about it not being what we were legally entitled to, but also explained the reality that if we rejected it, it would likely be 2 to 3 years before any legal avenues came to any kind of conclusion, and getting any money would depend on the two companies arguing over TUPE still existing.
So I accepted the SA, however the union have raised a group claim for failure to consult against the two companies involved, so somebody will have to decide whether TUPE should have applied, whether we should get the rest of the money we were contractually entitled to, and who should pay it.
The Union's lawyers estimate it will probably take a couple years though.