Tupe & Redundancy Notice
Discussion
Thought I would throw this out as we still haven't been given an answer via HR..
Currently I work for company 'x' who provide a service to company 'y', company 'y' have decided they no longer wish to 'manufacture' the financial product they sell and have sold the business to company 'z'.
The employees of 'x' are considered to eligible for TUPE (so z have to offer us jobs, effectively we become employees of 'z' on 1st January 2010).
As the work is being moved from an office on the South Coast which will close on 31st December (160 people
) to somewhere in Scotland, the TUPE roles available are all in Scotland.
The question I have raised (which is apparently with the legal department) is 'When can company Z officially put us on redundancy notice?'
Can they do it anytime prior to us actually becoming employees of theirs or can they only do it once we transfer to them ?
I have a meeting with 'z' next week and I think they are expecting me to tell them what I will be doing come 1st January but until I get an answer to this I don't wish to divulge my decision which leads to another question of when do I actually have to tell them what I intend to do ?
Currently I work for company 'x' who provide a service to company 'y', company 'y' have decided they no longer wish to 'manufacture' the financial product they sell and have sold the business to company 'z'.
The employees of 'x' are considered to eligible for TUPE (so z have to offer us jobs, effectively we become employees of 'z' on 1st January 2010).
As the work is being moved from an office on the South Coast which will close on 31st December (160 people
) to somewhere in Scotland, the TUPE roles available are all in Scotland.The question I have raised (which is apparently with the legal department) is 'When can company Z officially put us on redundancy notice?'
Can they do it anytime prior to us actually becoming employees of theirs or can they only do it once we transfer to them ?
I have a meeting with 'z' next week and I think they are expecting me to tell them what I will be doing come 1st January but until I get an answer to this I don't wish to divulge my decision which leads to another question of when do I actually have to tell them what I intend to do ?
Edited by Jimmyarm on Monday 26th October 12:00
My knowledge of TUPE is a bit limited but AIUI they can't put you on notice until you officially work for them.
They can tell you that you're going to be put on notice, but if your notice period is 4 weeks, that can only commence once you have been TUPE'd over and are under their employment i.e 1st Jan.
They can tell you that you're going to be put on notice, but if your notice period is 4 weeks, that can only commence once you have been TUPE'd over and are under their employment i.e 1st Jan.
As above:- It's the new company that makes you redundant.
The new company will have factored these costs into purchasing the service.
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation. Unless of course they don't want you to take up the role in Scotland and then they should be fairly open and flexible to getthe best deal for everyone. The problem you have is that the sellers will be trying to get the best price for their services and this will mean minimising redundancy payouts against the purchase price.
The new company will have factored these costs into purchasing the service.
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation. Unless of course they don't want you to take up the role in Scotland and then they should be fairly open and flexible to getthe best deal for everyone. The problem you have is that the sellers will be trying to get the best price for their services and this will mean minimising redundancy payouts against the purchase price.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th October 13:00
And isn't this one of the most stupid bits of legislation yet FFS.
Company A has a team of useless t
ts who can never get anything right and cost too much for their customer, Company B, to carry on using them. Company C successfully bids for the work but then have to take on the team from Company A who have caused all the grief in the first place.
Or am I miles from the truth - its just how it seems to me.
Company A has a team of useless t
ts who can never get anything right and cost too much for their customer, Company B, to carry on using them. Company C successfully bids for the work but then have to take on the team from Company A who have caused all the grief in the first place.Or am I miles from the truth - its just how it seems to me.
rlw said:
And isn't this one of the most stupid bits of legislation yet FFS.
Company A has a team of useless tts who can never get anything right and cost too much for their customer, Company B, to carry on using them. Company C successfully bids for the work but then have to take on the team from Company A who have caused all the grief in the first place.
Or am I miles from the truth - its just how it seems to me.
Usually Company A have to pass the workforce to Company B who have bid and won the contract for the work with a lower price. The workforce don't want to go as they know they are going to be screwed by company B. Company B cut costs because the bid price was to low and screw the workers. Company A has a team of useless t
ts who can never get anything right and cost too much for their customer, Company B, to carry on using them. Company C successfully bids for the work but then have to take on the team from Company A who have caused all the grief in the first place.Or am I miles from the truth - its just how it seems to me.
Then Company B pass the workers to company C who have bid an even lower price and the whole process repeats until everyone is completely demotivated. Seen it happen loads of times. Outsourcing in action...
Speedyman
PS. eventually the work goes to India and then China and you get hacked off when dealing with their call centre's.
OneDs said:
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation.
I'm not sure this is accurate.Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation.
Whenever I've dealt with job locations being moved, there's a threshold distance up to which you can reasonably be expected to move site to. IINM it's about 25 miles.
Anything over that and you can claim redundancy as it's too far to travel to.
The company cannot ask you to resign or sack you because they are moving the location to another site at the other end of the country. It's up to them to provide you with another job or offer redundancy - it's not up to you to up sticks and move on their whim.
Muzzer said:
OneDs said:
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation.
I'm not sure this is accurate.Simply stating it's too far to move too, is not reasonable. You have to have ties in your current location, ie. dependants. Otherwise it could be viewed as a resignation.
Whenever I've dealt with job locations being moved, there's a threshold distance up to which you can reasonably be expected to move site to. IINM it's about 25 miles.
Anything over that and you can claim redundancy as it's too far to travel to.
The company cannot ask you to resign or sack you because they are moving the location to another site at the other end of the country. It's up to them to provide you with another job or offer redundancy - it's not up to you to up sticks and move on their whim.
For instance, 25 miles might be held to be unreasonable in the case of a low paid manual worker, whereas 100 miles might be quite reasonable in the case of a middle/senior manager.
OneDs said:
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
I thought redundancy occurred if they no longer needed that job done in that location. (I'm sure there's a legal definition of how far away they can move the job without implicitly making you redundant, but I'd expect it to be tens of miles not hundreds.)GreenV8S said:
OneDs said:
You have to prove that the move to Scotland is an unreasonable request to qualify for any redundancy.
I thought redundancy occurred if they no longer needed that job done in that location. (I'm sure there's a legal definition of how far away they can move the job without implicitly making you redundant, but I'd expect it to be tens of miles not hundreds.)For instance, an MD working for global brand who has worked in a number of different countries throughout his career is required to close down the operation he runs in say Austria. His employers intend to redeploy him to Norway. He refuses, resigns, claims he has been constructively dismissed - would he win? Probably not, I'd suggest.
Conversely a junior factory worker close to minimum wage has their workplace closed. Employer compulsorily redeploys to an alternative factory 10 miles away in a location without public transport links, stating it to be suitable alternative employment. Employee would very likely have a successful claim here.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff