Merger contract change + mat leave
Discussion
Hopefully someone on here knows a bit about changes of contract post-acquisition?
My other half works for a company which has just been partially bought out. She's been taken over by the buying company and has been told she will go onto their T&Cs later in the year if she wants to (which she does as they are much better benefits than her current smaller company).
We've just found out shes pregnant. The new company mat policy is much more generous than the old company, but she may not have gone onto their terms at the point of birth later in the year.
So question is, is there anything stopping the new company from transferring someone onto a new contract (TUPE) if they are on mat leave already? And is it likely that she can take advantage of the new company mat pay (even if just for a reduced period of time mid way through mat leave?) or not?
Of secondary concern there is also a retention bonus for staying with the new company if shes still with them in Dec this year. Is there any way they can weasel their way out of this if she's on mat leave but still working for them?
Clearly timing of this not ideal! Any HR/legal pointers very welcome!
My other half works for a company which has just been partially bought out. She's been taken over by the buying company and has been told she will go onto their T&Cs later in the year if she wants to (which she does as they are much better benefits than her current smaller company).
We've just found out shes pregnant. The new company mat policy is much more generous than the old company, but she may not have gone onto their terms at the point of birth later in the year.
So question is, is there anything stopping the new company from transferring someone onto a new contract (TUPE) if they are on mat leave already? And is it likely that she can take advantage of the new company mat pay (even if just for a reduced period of time mid way through mat leave?) or not?
Of secondary concern there is also a retention bonus for staying with the new company if shes still with them in Dec this year. Is there any way they can weasel their way out of this if she's on mat leave but still working for them?
Clearly timing of this not ideal! Any HR/legal pointers very welcome!
The acquiring company cannot impose contractural conditions on the employees of the company it acquires that are less than they receive currently. So the default position of your OH should be that on the assumption she was happy to fall pregnant whilst working under the original ownership, then she should be happy regardless of anything else because a) that won't change and b) you'll soon be parents and nothing else will matter.
By virtue of the fact that the incoming company appears to have more favourable conditions, it stands to reason that they are a more compassionate firm and so may be more open and more responsive to an enquiry as to how the land might lay. But do remember they are only buying into the firm, not acquiring outright.
Either way, I wouldn't let this cloud your thinking. As I say, nothing will change. A bit extra would be nice. But focus energies on her and enjoy the moment.
Best of luck!
By virtue of the fact that the incoming company appears to have more favourable conditions, it stands to reason that they are a more compassionate firm and so may be more open and more responsive to an enquiry as to how the land might lay. But do remember they are only buying into the firm, not acquiring outright.
Either way, I wouldn't let this cloud your thinking. As I say, nothing will change. A bit extra would be nice. But focus energies on her and enjoy the moment.
Best of luck!
If company A acquired the shares in company B, and the business of company B remains with company B, there has been no transfer of undertaking and therefore the TUPE regulations do not apply. TUPE regulations would apply if company A acquired the business but not the shares in company B.
A change to maternity rights could in some circumstances contravene equality protections.
OP, the facts as stated by you are insufficiently clear for informed advice.
StevieBee above no doubt means well, but his advice is in some respects potentially misleading.
IAAL NYL.
A change to maternity rights could in some circumstances contravene equality protections.
OP, the facts as stated by you are insufficiently clear for informed advice.
StevieBee above no doubt means well, but his advice is in some respects potentially misleading.
IAAL NYL.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:29
Breadvan72 said:
If company A acquired the shares in company B, and the business of company B remains with company B, there has been no transfer of undertaking and therefore the TUPE regulations do not apply. TUPE regulations would apply if company A acquired the business but not the shares in company B.
A change to maternity rights could in some circumstances contravene equality protections.
OP, the facts as stated by you are insufficiently clear for informed advice.
StevieBee above no doubt means well, but his advice is in some respects potentially misleading.
IAAL NYL.
Thanks for the points both. Breadvan, I'll try to clarify. Company B (the acquirer) has bought one of Company As main products and the staff that go with outright. They didnt acquire shares, but a rather split the original company A in two, with part of it subsuming into Company B and the other bit remaining in Company As original owners ownership. Those going to company B are being TUPEd over, this has already been briefed to the staff. We are happy with this as company B is a large listed company and has good benefits compared to the small independent company A. By the time my OH is due to give birth (likely around late Sept) she will be working in Company B. Their payroll is being taken over in April. However (and this is the crux), they have stated that incoming employees will only be transferred onto full T&Cs in "Q3 or Q4" (which is unhelpfully vague), and therefore potentially my OH will have given birth before those T&Cs are in place (depending on exact date). There is a substantial difference in terms (company A gives 6 weeks at 90% pay vs company B which gives 18 weeks) which would be a 5 figure difference to us. Hence we are very keen for her to be on company B mat policy.A change to maternity rights could in some circumstances contravene equality protections.
OP, the facts as stated by you are insufficiently clear for informed advice.
StevieBee above no doubt means well, but his advice is in some respects potentially misleading.
IAAL NYL.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 18th January 10:29
The maternity pay policy may not even be contractual. The context is different but I recently reviewed the UK maternity policy at my current company. The payment was signifiantly enhanced. Anybody who was currently on maternity leave got a retrospective back payment and coverage under the new policy.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff