Does anyone here have knowledge of TUPE in ad agencies?

[MitchT]

Apparently it's quite common for ad agencies to have stuff relating to TUPE in their contracts with clients, such that, should a client take its business elsewhere, any staff who spent at least 70% of their time working on said client's account would be TUPEd to the new agency.

I've been reading up on this as I'm thinking of moving into the advertising sector, but while TUPE claims to be all about the employee, it doesn't actually seem to protect the employee if they don't want to transfer. If the new agency doesn't want to take you on you have been 'dismissed', and you have rights, but if you refuse to transfer you are deemed to have 'resigned' and have no rights whatsoever unless you can prove a detrimental change to your working conditions.

My concern is that I could take a job in Leeds (20 minutes from where I live by train) and then end up with a client whose account I've worked on extensively taking their business to an agency in Manchester and me being TUPEd over there, leaving me with a commute which is a whole lot longer and a whole lot more expensive. But, as it's not strictly 'working conditions' I don't have a leg to stand on. I lose a big chunk of my life and a big chunk of my income to the commute, but all the new employer has to do is give me the same as I currently get - nothing extra to reflect the impact that the change has on my financial circumstances or my life - nor can I demand redundancy instead.

Does anyone here have experience of this and know what rights an employee might have in the case of such a change being to the 'material detriment' of the employee?

[trickywoo]

MitchT said:

Apparently it's quite common for ad agencies to have stuff relating to TUPE in their contracts with clients, such that, should a client take its business elsewhere, any staff who spent at least 70% of their time working on said client's account would be TUPEd to the new agency.

This isn't a contractual issue its employment law and as such applies in all areas of work where such circumstances exist.

The main thing to consider is how keen a company will be to keep an employee despite coming under TUPE remit in such circumstances. Its not a rule that the affected employee has to be transferred.

Unfortunately your concerns fall under the category of 'thats life'. Just make sure you are good at your job and your possible problems will be limited.

Or get a public sector job.

[Matt Harper]

I'm failing to grasp the logic in any of this - and I worked in UK ad agencies for many years before 'escaping' to the client-side.

If the client decides to st-can their ad agency, it's invariably because they are not getting the partnership, consultancy or results that they were lead to believe would be delivered, or….. they appoint a new director of marketing, who has his own 'pet agency'.

Probably the LAST thing the client wants or needs is to have a bunch of losers from the agency they just 86'd being transferred to the new shop, where they can carry on churning out the same drivel that got them fired in the first place.

…or did I miss something?

[trickywoo]

Matt Harper said:

…or did I miss something?

In the 'right' circumstances they would be obliged to tupe them. If the employe was that bad the current employer would be happy to see them go.

[trickywoo]

Matt Harper said:

…or did I miss something?

In the 'right' circumstances they would be obliged to tupe them. If the employe was that bad the current employer would be happy to see them go.

[Matt Harper]

trickywoo said:

In the 'right' circumstances they would be obliged to tupe them. If the employe was that bad the current employer would be happy to see them go.

Maybe so - but how would the client be expected to react? i.e. Switched agency because they were crap - and now all the crap has been transferred to my new agency. That is a pretty significant logic fail for the people that are paying the fees.

[edc]

Matt Harper said:

trickywoo said:

In the 'right' circumstances they would be obliged to tupe them. If the employe was that bad the current employer would be happy to see them go.

Maybe so - but how would the client be expected to react? i.e. Switched agency because they were crap - and now all the crap has been transferred to my new agency. That is a pretty significant logic fail for the people that are paying the fees.

The agencies and the customer should be aware of TUPE and build in conditions, indeminities etc into the structure and pricing of the deal. When all is said and told if you are particularly good, you want to stay, and your employer wants you to stay, they will do what they can to retain you and effectively swap somebody else in. TUPE is pretty standard fare in services based businesses and for those organisations that have hundreds or thousands of contracts probably happens on a weekly basis.

[MitchT]

trickywoo said:

This isn't a contractual issue its employment law and as such applies in all areas of work where such circumstances exist.

I didn't realise it was so far reaching. I thought responsibility for the employee would always rest with the agency employing them. If the agency loses a client and there isn't enough work to go round then people get made redundant, end of. Seems it's much more complicated.

trickywoo said:

Unfortunately your concerns fall under the category of 'thats life'. Just make sure you are good at your job and your possible problems will be limited.

Indeed, which is why I'm happy to take my chances.

trickywoo said:

Or get a public sector job.

I'll give that a miss, thanks

Matt Harper said:

Probably the LAST thing the client wants or needs is to have a bunch of losers from the agency they just 86'd being transferred to the new shop, where they can carry on churning out the same drivel that got them fired in the first place.

This did cross my mind. The last thing the client wants is to have the new supplier employing the same bunch that they were trying to get rid of by sacking the old supplier, and the incoming supplier probably wants the work for its own staff.

Matt Harper said:

... I worked in UK ad agencies for many years before 'escaping' to the client-side.

You'd consider 'cient-side' an escape then? What is there client-side for someone who's moved from an agency?

[Matt Harper]

MitchT said:

You'd consider 'cient-side' an escape then? What is there client-side for someone who's moved from an agency?

I did consider it escaping - provincial agencies (I worked for several of the 'main players' in Manchester and Leeds) were just too fragile and lacking in bedrock stability - just a couple of phone calls from catastrophe. The number of times a new marketing director was appointed by a client and the whole account review circus was put into motion was a bit of a joke. Then there was pitch ideas (and teams) that were never utilized once the business was 'secured' and the first hint of trouble always preceded mass lay-offs.

I found it to be a quite exciting business to be a part of when I was young and couldn't care less, but as I got older and with more responsibility it became less attractive because it's fickle (pissing away other people's money is often this way).

In answer to your question: more money, security, prospects for advancement, opportunity to build brands long-term, benefits, free-time, retirement provision, integrity…. shall I carry on?

[MitchT]

Interesting. I've heard that the pay is better client-side but I've been client side for the last 17 years and the pay is dreadful. Jobs asking for people with two to three years experience are offering as much. I suspect that's just the company I work for though. My OH worked in the same place (we met there) but moved on fairly quickly and is now being paid 65% more to do what is, essentially, the same job, and simply considers herself to be on the going rate.

I must admit, I'd prefer a stable life, but I'm not sure what there is, client-side, for designers like myself in my area. At least there are a few decent agencies and not all totally on a knife edge. Ill be the first to admit that it's a riskier sector though.

[Matt Harper]

I was a suit, not a creative, media or production bod. Suits tend to earn bigger money, but are first for the chop when things get rocky.
The reality of it for me was as stated. it was fun while I was less burdened with responsibility to family despite the fact that in the 90's there was a lot of turmoil and upheaval in the industry. Advertising Principals and BRAHM were great companies to work for back then, but both were heavily reliant on one or two clients, which was precarious to say the least.

I jumped when a client offered me the opportunity to relocate to the USA - that was the biggest hook for me.

The concept of TUPE didn't exist when I was in the business. It makes zero sense in the context of this industry, as far as I can tell.

[edc]

TUPE certainly was around in the 90s. The point you guys seem to be missing is that it is not designed to assist the business. The clue is in the name of the regulation itself.