Tupe and redundacy

simpav

If a company makes a person redundant because they are tupe'ing the role to a location abroad, at what point does the person from the offshore company, who is being trained in the UK to perform the role, have to leave and perform the role in the offshore location.

If the company keeps the offshore person in the UK, at what point could you say that the role was never redundant.

Thanks

POSSETTE

mmmmm.try acas website.they will know.

KeithP

Turn it round the other way...
It appears that the offshore person is being trained at your current work location, right?
As long as that work is being done where you have always done it, no redundancy has occurred. When the work moves too far away for you to do it, then you become redundant.

getmore4less

Does TUPE apply?

I though it was for when your job moves to another compny to protect your T&C's

Can it apply to jobs that move outside the UK?

simpav

I assume it can apply to jobs abroad as it is happening.

The question I am asking is whether when the UK persons reaches his or her leaving date does the offshore person have to be working offshore or can the company keep that person working in the UK, performing the same role as the person they've made redundant.

KeithP

simpav wrote: »

The question I am asking is whether when the UK persons reaches his or her leaving date does the offshore person have to be working offshore or can the company keep that person working in the UK, performing the same role as the person they've made redundant.

Errr...
Wasn't that the question that I answered above?
Effectively, they appear to have taken on another person to do the work of the 'redundant' person. There is no redundancy here.

Here is one definition of redundancy.
From this definition, it is possible that my answer above could be wrong. The sentence: "The employer has ceased, or intends to cease continuing the business..." could be open to a different interpretation to mine.

save-a-lot

I think as long as the offshore person remains in the UK, then the role is not redundant.

LittleVoice

I don't believe TUPE is the name of the game here - as that is about protecting employment on the transfer of an undertaking.

The question is about redundancy in the UK. As save-a-lot says, for someone to be doing the job in the UK shows it is not a redundancy. You could perhaps get evidence and consider taking an employer to ET if they have tried to dismiss on the grounds of redundancy.

hex2

Not redundancy as such, but dismissal for some other substantial reason (economic, technical, organisational) - the business is being restructured post transfer and the work is moving abroad which is potentially fair under TUPE 2006. Are you willing to travel that far or to relocate? If no it is a potentially fair dismissal as long as they consult with you.

Not sure how this is TUPE - is a new company taking the work on, or are they just transferring the work elsewhere within the same company? In either case though what I have said above is accurate.

LittleVoice

hex2 wrote: »

Not redundancy as such, but dismissal for some other substantial reason (economic, technical, organisational) - the business is being restructured post transfer and the work is moving abroad which is potentially fair under TUPE 2006. Are you willing to travel that far or to relocate? If no it is a potentially fair dismissal as long as they consult with you.

Not sure how this is TUPE - is a new company taking the work on, or are they just transferring the work elsewhere within the same company? In either case though what I have said above is accurate.

Well, if the work is meant to be done abroad in the future, I believe it is redundancy in the UK. However the OP was asking about someone new (brought in from overseas, I think) doing the work in the UK in place of the OP. I'm not sure about the "other substantial reason" in that case - saying I can get it done cheaper by someone from overseas working in the UK doesn't seem right to me.

Bigcammy

I think what the OP means is that the company intended sending the work overseas. An overseas employee was brought to the UK to learn the job before returning to his/her original country to carry on the work he has just learnt. In this case, it sounds like the overseas employee is now staying in the UK to carry out this work, meaning that the OP has effectively been replaced in the UK by the overseas employee instead of his work being offshored.

Am I correct in my interpretation.

In this case, I reckon the OP has a case because he was losing his job due to offshoring, but that never happened and he's simply been replaced.