Redundancy however business continuing...

Redundancy however business continuing...

Author
Discussion

MrBarry123

Original Poster:

6,027 posts

121 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
A little bit of help please?

My partner's sister works as a beautician for a business and has done for the past two and a half years, during which time they've been a very fair employer.

The current owner is moving to LA and has sold/given it to his daughter so she will become the sole owner - fair enough, no issue with this given it's his business and he can do what he wants with it.

She plans to rename the business to her liking.

She has said that she will give all current employees new contracts under the new business however that they will therefore be made redundant from their current position with the current business.

My understanding would be that as a result of this, the employment rights earned by my partner's sister - having being there two and a half years - will be defunct along with the current business.

I suppose my question is whether this is allowed and/or can my partner's sister challenge the suggestion that she is being made redundant given the business is continuing, albeit under a different name?

To complicate things further, my partner's sister and her partner are planning on securing a mortgage against a property in the next 2-3 months.

Gargamel

14,987 posts

261 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
Is the actual legal entity changing ?

Normally this would be a transfer if it is a new entity.
If she really is proposing redundancy is there any additional money or severance, Ie is the employer making the redundancy meaningful ? I suspect not.

Suspect it isn't malicious just not understanding the right way to do it.

mondeoman

11,430 posts

266 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
Google TUPE - workers rights are generally protected under change of ownership. IANAL etc.. but I think the daughter is potentially doing something somewhat illegal.

MrBarry123

Original Poster:

6,027 posts

121 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
Thanks for the input both.

Gargamel - good questions but I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to either. I'll look to see if I can get some answers.

mondeoman - yes, I assumed TUPE would apply in this instance.

Fore Left

1,418 posts

182 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
It is the role that is made redundant not the person.

http://www.redundancyexpert.co.uk said:
But before you embark on any redundancies make sure that the person’s job has actually become redundant. Redundancy means that their role no longer exists or there will be less demand for their job in the foreseeable future.
Full article here

Vaud

50,473 posts

155 months

Friday 13th January 2017
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
Google TUPE - workers rights are generally protected under change of ownership. IANAL etc.. but I think the daughter is potentially doing something somewhat illegal.
It's probably ineptitude rather than deliberate, and needs to be played carefully in a small business, a call to ACAS might help with positioning.

andy-xr

13,204 posts

204 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Some people who work in this trade arent actually employees. Would be worth checking whether there's actually an employment contract. Many are self employed

edc

9,235 posts

251 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
andy-xr said:
Some people who work in this trade arent actually employees. Would be worth checking whether there's actually an employment contract. Many are self employed
If they are not employees then they can't be made redundant from the original business anyway if this is the case.

andy-xr

13,204 posts

204 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
edc said:
andy-xr said:
Some people who work in this trade arent actually employees. Would be worth checking whether there's actually an employment contract. Many are self employed
If they are not employees then they can't be made redundant from the original business anyway if this is the case.
I dont think redundancy in it's expected or actual form is what's happening here in the first place. Sounds like either the new owner is confused or hasnt quite got the message over to the people who work for her