TUPE advice please?

SarEl

Post #27 Quote "My last employer only had the pub 18 months so I wouldn't qualify for redundancy as it's less than 2 years surely." If the OP had continuous employment for 14 years then they would have previously been TUPEd over. The OP hasn't claimed this, so he is saying his continous employment is less than 2 years. The OP either has 14 years continuous service or 18 months - not both.

However, it seems that your interest here has been well and truly exposed - and not by me. You are solely interested in flaming others because they disagree with you, and then going back and bragging to your buddies. Seems to me that in most workplaces that would be called bullying.

I reiterate what I told the OP originally - nobody should depend on an internet advice board to replace proper and independant legal advice from a solicitor who can consider the documentation and evidence available. Only under those circumstances can the OP be given a legal opinion - and even that does not mean that the legal opinion will win the OP a case.

K_Limpert

SarEl wrote: »

Post #27 Quote "My last employer only had the pub 18 months so I wouldn't qualify for redundancy as it's less than 2 years surely." If the OP had continuous employment for 14 years then they would have previously been TUPEd over. The OP hasn't claimed this, so he is saying his continous employment is less than 2 years. The OP either has 14 years continuous service or 18 months - not both.

And obviously the OP would know the legal facts around this perfectly well, being a bar person, not an employment law barrister! Why would they even bother to ask for advice, as employment barristers know who to serve a perfect cocktail just as well as bar staff know employment law!?

SarEl wrote: »

However, it seems that your interest here has been well and truly exposed - and not by me. You are solely interested in flaming others because they disagree with you, and then going back and bragging to your buddies. Seems to me that in most workplaces that would be called bullying.

Sorry, but I missed that bit SarEl!

Was my alleged flaming in defence to your absurd accusations about me being three different people (for which your above post appears to concede you recognise is not the case - you do after all make specific mention of the employee's work status, and then refer to my "buddies") or elsewhere?

You do know there is an "abuse" button you can press on all threads if you do feel you have been bullied? Not sure if it's appropriate to use simply because you're being contradicted, but that would be for the moderators to consider.

SarEl wrote: »

I reiterate what I told the OP originally - nobody should depend on an internet advice board to replace proper and independant legal advice from a solicitor who can consider the documentation and evidence available. Only under those circumstances can the OP be given a legal opinion - and even that does not mean that the legal opinion will win the OP a case.

I beg your pardon, but you mentioned this in neither post 2 or 3 of this thread, or indeed anywhere else on this thread. In posts 2/3 you simply mentioned checking with the brewery, on the basis the OP may be entitled to redundancy - which from the information available, and certainly based on your opinion, they would not be! Other than that, your contribution was that TUPE would probably not apply, but rather redundancy would:

SarEl wrote: »

You quite certainly, in my view, would have a legal claim against the former tenant for redundancy pay, if the staff are not part of the tenancy deal (which as I said, would be unusual). But I think that TUPE would be unlikely - although I could not say for sure without seeing all the documentation relating to the tenancy agreement(s) of both tenants.

I would suggest, as I have done previously, that the available facts are considered, not what you want to imagine, or now wish, was stated.

And to reiterate for the record, transferring staff as part of an undertaking to run a pub, is not unusual. The breweries recognise this, and highlight the fact on their websites. There is nothing unusual about it, and anyone that understands employment law would appreciate it is normally an obligation on the transferor & transferee - regardless of the breweries role.



Karl Limpert

allioli

allioli wrote: »

The pub has had two tennants within the last eighteen months the former of which liquidated the company February 2009. would I still be able to make a claim for redundancy?

This is my first reference to the pub having two tennants in my 14 year employment.

allioli

allanwhyte77 wrote: »

My last employer only had the pub 18 months so I wouldn't qualify for redundancy as it's less than 2 years surely. The tennant before him I worked for for 12 years. He's now in Australia and he liquidated the business before he left.

My employment has been unbroken

This is my second refernce to my unbroken employment

allioli

allanwhyte77 wrote: »

My last employer only had the pub 18 months so I wouldn't qualify for redundancy as it's less than 2 years surely. The tennant before him I worked for for 12 years. He's now in Australia and he liquidated the business before he left.

My employment has been unbroken

My second reference to my unbroken employment

allioli

allioli wrote: »

I didn't claim to have worked in the pub for 14 years in 1 post and 2 years in another. In reference to applying to my last employer for redundancy I had worked for my last employer less than 2 years so he wouldn't be liable to pay me redundancy. The tennant who had the pub prior to the one who has just left I worked for for 12 years

I've worked in the pub since 1996.

As for the invitations to accept the advice or not. Thanks given to everyone thats offered it here on moneysavingexpertforum and ukbusinessforum and the advice that I recieved on consumeractiongroup forum who felt the advice I recieved here, on this occasion, regarding TUPE, was inaccurate.

my third reference to this

allioli

SarEl wrote: »

Post #27 Quote "My last employer only had the pub 18 months so I wouldn't qualify for redundancy as it's less than 2 years surely." If the OP had continuous employment for 14 years then they would have previously been TUPEd over. The OP hasn't claimed this, so he is saying his continous employment is less than 2 years. The OP either has 14 years continuous service or 18 months - not both.

However, it seems that your interest here has been well and truly exposed - and not by me. You are solely interested in flaming others because they disagree with you, and then going back and bragging to your buddies. Seems to me that in most workplaces that would be called bullying.

I reiterate what I told the OP originally - nobody should depend on an internet advice board to replace proper and independant legal advice from a solicitor who can consider the documentation and evidence available. Only under those circumstances can the OP be given a legal opinion - and even that does not mean that the legal opinion will win the OP a case.

You havn't read my posts

allioli

gner_ex wrote: »

No way is this lady an employment law barrister. Even if the tenancy document is silent on the issue of staff, landlord number 2 has inherited a business (or part of a business) which employs staff.

In fact, even if the "tenancy contract" says that he doesn't inherit any staff, I think you will find that a tribunal will overrule that.

If you really are a barrister, please post the contact details of your chambers and I will call your clerk to apologise.

Looks like regular posters on moneysavingexpertforum doubt this advice too.

allioli

SarEl wrote: »

Oh yes, lots of people, not least quite a few employers and their legal advisers. I never make any firends amongst the latter since we do not represent employers at all.

But thank you for pointing this out - I shall, as you imply, stop wasting my time on this. I also note with interest that the OP says that he has worked at the pub for less than 2 years in this thread - and 14 years on the other thread you have pointed out.

Being logged onto three forums at the same time surely isn't that uncommon. I thought it wise to get as much advice from as many different forums. As it happens, that approach has served me well, had I only been on one forum, namely this one, I may have been given inacurrate information.

Having been accused of being a fraudulant poster, a poster who doesn't know or is a liar about how long he has worked in his present job and is trying to advertise his business.

I'm trusting the advice from Karl and the likes because he has followed up his advice with references to TUPE. He hasn't miss quoted anyone which our barrister friend has with many posts including my own (which even I havn't and I'm only in the bar trade)

To be honest if I was infront of this so could barrister I think I can confidently say I'd rip her to shreds myself because you don't read or look at whats been posted properly. You havn't read my posts properly, which you have proved. So anyone looking through this thread can see that.

And I stand by my comments Karl made minemeat of you because if you actualy read each post he did.

allioli

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Agree, my sons were TUPEd not that long ago, and I am fairly sure that soon after getting a letter saying it was going to happen that they received P45s from the old employer, before continuing to work under the same T&Cs with the new employer. Without that, the new employer wouldn't know what to do wrt PAYE.

SavySue a regular poster on this site seems to offer sound advice too