Tupe

SarEl

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

Without a doubt his employment terms are being changed, typical examples
1. 2 hours per day extra travel (unpaid) which he never had before.
2. Use of a company van (which I understand was always a gesture not a right, but with his last job was advertised as a perk and he always had from word go) has nonetheless been withdrawn - he will be expected to use his own transport (and pay)
3. Same with company mobile phone - he will be expected to use his own (and pay)

I reiterate my main worry though, does his new employer have the right after TUPE to then move him to an entirely different job, without his agreement, and if so, are his rights still protected that particular job (contract) is switched to a different company? I think that the job is an important issue.

He just wants to work on the same job he has done for last 3 years, not be switched over to something else. His employers have different ideas and I want to know if this will be to his deteriment.

PS Loving your signature!

There is nothing whatsoever safe (or much that is protected) about TUPE, so you need to get it out of your head that there is. There are a lot of myths about TUPE. The previous posters are correct - if the employment has been transferred to the new employer then the TUPE has taken place, and the main particulars of his employment are "protected" - much as those protections are not worth as much as people seem to think they are. Put very simply, he continues in the main to be employed as if there had been no change in employers. But what that does not necessarily mean is that he continues to be employed on those conditions or at all. If there is no work to do for now in his normal job then there may be reasonable cause to provide him with alternative employment until his normal work returns. But if there is a strong business case, staff who have been TUPE'd can be made redundant (provided it is done fairly and objectively, and includes all the relevant staff affected - new and old). For the same reasons there are grounds upon which changes can be made to contractual terms. So it all depends - and there isn't enough information here for anyone to be able to give you a direct and definitive answer.

The same is true of your specific questions - it's hard to give a definitive answer because we do not know enough. If the extra 2 hours is, for example, travel to and from a place of work, then this may not be relevant to the TUPE - whilst some employers might pay for such a relocation for an interim period, they don't have to. And much may also depend on what his "permanant" place of work is.

The same is true of other "perks" - it all depends. Having had use of a van may establish custom and practice contractual rights, but that does not always mean that it does or that such a practice can be transferred with the "contract". As for who pays - if his previous employer was paying for his personal travel to and from work (as opposed to his travel for work purposes) then that should (a) have been a taxable benefit and (b) cannot be enforced on a new employer as no employer is obliged to pay for travel to and from work.On the other hand, if we are discussing travel for work purposes - an employer cannot oblige you to use your own transport unless there is a contractual term permitting this (and such clauses are hard to enforce) - he can use the bus if he wishes. And travel for work purposes ought to be reimbursed according to contractual agreements. As for the phone - well that is probably the simplest one to answer. "I do not have a mobile phone and if you want to contact me you will have to provide one". Nobody can make you use (or own) a mobile phone for work purposes.

The problem you have is that none of us know enough detail about what is happening or what agreements are in place - his union should and should be able to advise. TUPE law is a nightmare in practice, and the only way anyone could give you an almost definitive answer is knowing all the circumstances and the paperwork and the agreements made in the transfer. I really do think your union has to be the best port of call.

Bobl

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

Without a doubt his employment terms are being changed, typical examples

I understand your fears, however you have still not answered the fundamental question; what is his current 'employment Contract Terms'. Only when you know those will you know whether what they are asking him to do now is outside of them.

I can quite understand that he is not happy with the changes, but that does not mean they are not legal.

For instance; I work for a company that TUPE'd over 200 employees in. They all went home at 3 O'clock on Wednesdays, we wanted them to do full days 5 days a week. When I checked the terms of their contract there was no clause that said they could leave early on any day, neither did they have a 'flexible working' clause. It was not popular, but they had to work full days 5 days a week.

Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but you need to read his 'Employment Contract'

Mrs_Optimist

Firstly many thanks to the replies I have received, much appreciated.

The van issue; the van was used to drive from our home address to various work locations in the local area, DH did not have to drive to the office, then pick up a van and go to the locations specified. He would go straight to the locations from home. He is a plumber and so needs various tools at all times to be able to undertake his job, a bus really isn't an option as they would be impossible to carry!

The mobile phone issue I agree with. DH does not want to make waves so is using his own mobile for now.

We do not have a new contract of employment as yet, but his existing one states you "may" have the use of a van for work purposes so it would appear that in spite of the fact that he has had a van for 3 years he may well now find himself out of pocket as a result of TUPE as he will have to purchase and run a second car purely for work purposes. The new working week is longer so will have to be negotiated.

The Union is meeting with the members on Friday so hopefully we should know more then. I am unsurprised I suppose that TUPE hasn't turned out to be the all singing all dancing move DH was told it would be by his previous employers.

Once again, many thanks for those who have taken time to respond. I have thanked you individually too.

Mrs_Optimist

UPDATE:

I wanted to share an update with those of you who may be interested.

The job that DH was transferred to work on has never started and is on hold "indefinately". There are other men from previous different employers on different jobs that were TUPE'd to this company in the same boat. The share price for this company crashed by 80% last night and they are fighting bankruptcy. It is obvious now that they put in ridiculously low tenders to purely get the work on their books to satisfy the Bank, with no intention of ever starting the jobs in questions since they were not cost efficient to make it wort their while (because of the low tender). I have done a lot of reasearch on internet this morning and there are lots of stories up and down the country involving this company and the same practice having taken place.

So the upshot is that although the Union are involved, if the company goes bankrupt, DH and a lot of others will be out of work anyway.

karenccs67

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

UPDATE:

I wanted to share an update with those of you who may be interested.

The job that DH was transferred to work on has never started and is on hold "indefinately". There are other men from previous different employers on different jobs that were TUPE'd to this company in the same boat. The share price for this company crashed by 80% last night and they are fighting bankruptcy. It is obvious now that they put in ridiculously low tenders to purely get the work on their books to satisfy the Bank, with no intention of ever starting the jobs in questions since they were not cost efficient to make it wort their while (because of the low tender). I have done a lot of reasearch on internet this morning and there are lots of stories up and down the country involving this company and the same practice having taken place.

So the upshot is that although the Union are involved, if the company goes bankrupt, DH and a lot of others will be out of work anyway.

what a terrible thing to do, lets hope the union can help your OH and the others in some way.

Mrs_Optimist

I hope so too, but being realistic it seems that there is nothing that DH can do if the business goes bankrupt, except maybe apply to get a new job with whichever firm gets the re tender (whenever that happens)

I just can't believe that firms can get away with tendering for a contract that they have no intention/hope of honouring. It seems his old employers may also have some liability because they didn't consult properly wth their employees and the new firm prior to the TUPE happening. Its in the hands of the Union now so we will have to wait and see.