TUPE Relocation question

BBB.

Hello I have a TUPE Relocation question. Would anyone be able to assist on this question please?
The Company I work for is to integrate into a larger company doing similar work. Both companies are owned by the same Multinational. The transfer is under TUPE. In my integration there are about 25 people affected. The majority of this group now work from home due to the closure of offices previously used after a previous TUPE. The new company that we are moving to works predominantly from an office in central London and do not normally have employees working from home. We have been told we will be made automatically redundant and the ETO reason is the closure of a location requiring changes in the workplace.
We will then also be given the option of applying for a role within the new company but would have to accept new T&C’s even if the new role will be similar to the existing one. Length of service would be maintained.
My question is : Is this procedure correct? It seems that we have no protection under TUPE in this scenario. If a location change was made in a normal (Non TUPE) situation I understand that we would have some protection and would be given the opportunity to move to the new location with the same T&C’s.
Do my colleagues and I have a case to argue here? Any help would be gratefully received
Many thanks…

hcb42

seems a long way to go about it - after all they could TUPE you and then change conditions down the line

Are the Ts and Cs very different? I dont understand why they would make you redundant and then potentially re employ you either, would cost them more potentially

BBB.

Thanks for the quick reply,
Potentially the Pension is a big difference. Vacation would be less and there are other differences .
However if we were to accept new roles we may have to accept a reduced salary, nor does the existing car scheme look assured. Currently we do not know the details of roles we might move to.
Steve

SarEl

BBB. wrote: »

Hello I have a TUPE Relocation question. Would anyone be able to assist on this question please?
The Company I work for is to integrate into a larger company doing similar work. Both companies are owned by the same Multinational. The transfer is under TUPE. In my integration there are about 25 people affected. The majority of this group now work from home due to the closure of offices previously used after a previous TUPE. The new company that we are moving to works predominantly from an office in central London and do not normally have employees working from home. We have been told we will be made automatically redundant and the ETO reason is the closure of a location requiring changes in the workplace.
We will then also be given the option of applying for a role within the new company but would have to accept new T&C’s even if the new role will be similar to the existing one. Length of service would be maintained.
My question is : Is this procedure correct? It seems that we have no protection under TUPE in this scenario. If a location change was made in a normal (Non TUPE) situation I understand that we would have some protection and would be given the opportunity to move to the new location with the same T&C’s.
Do my colleagues and I have a case to argue here? Any help would be gratefully received
Many thanks…

Actually I agree with you - I do think this would be unafir in law unless you agreed to it. Having said that - I'd recommend you do, because harmisation of contracts can happen very quickly and you would loose the benefits anyway - but without the redundancy pay.

BBB.

Thanks for the reply. We wouldn't get the redundancy money and a role in the new company. It is either redundancy OR accept a new role with the new T&C's.
So it seems that there is actually no protection in TUPE unless your existing work place is retained. In this Integration all existing work places are being closed to ensure everyone moves to the same office. Because they have closed the locations (home offices and existing head office) then they have evoked a get out from TUPE.
Thought we might get some protection. Some of the transferee have over 20 years.
Thanks for looking at this anyway.
Regards.

SarEl

Sorry, your original post gave the impression that you were being made redundant and that you then had the option of applying for a position at the new office. I admit, I thought it a weird way to go about things, but employers have been weirder!

If you are at risk of redundancy (disregard the TUPE for now) then your employer is obliged to seek to find you a suitable alternative employment, which means at approximately the same pay, conditions and status. However, they are not required to protect your pay and conditions if no such job exists. In your case no such job exists because other employees are not paid the terms and conditions you are, so if you want to remain in employment your must accept the lower conditions. This would be the case for any employee in this situation.

TUPE does not protect your workplace, and not does it make you entitled to more rights than those you would have had if it had not occured. In your case the actual jobs are not being transferred to another location (which would give you protections under TUPE) - the new jobs are different roles and not your existing jobs. Or that is what you appear to be saying. So TUPE is only intended to safeguard your conditions of service (in a limited way) provided your actual jobs themselves remain. If you can show that the jobs at the new locations are the same jobs (not similar jobs - the same jobs) then redundancy would be a breach of TUPE

ConcernedEmployee

Hi, I am in the same group as Steve and can help clarify his question...

Although most of us have worked from home for many years now, we have been told that as our new employer does not normally have any home workers they will be "closing" our work location and are giving that as an ETO reason for escaping TUPE. This is regardless of our current role continuing or not in the new organization. We are told this ETO reason will mean we are "technically" redundant and therefore if we are offered a job (however similar to our existing roles) we will have to accept it on their existing T&Cs, not our current ones.
If this is valid it seems that anyone that works from home and is subject to a TUPE transfer have no real TUPE protection.

Thanks.

SarEl

Ok - much clearer. And crap too! Ignore the fact of home working. It isn't relevant. You work in a location, the location is no longer going to be the work location (so it could be a factory closure). So there are potential redundancies. if the work is being relocated elsewhere then you have the option of transefrring with the job - otherwise it is unfair dismissal. The terms and conditions of the job don't change at all - it is the same job. The only thing that is changing is the location. That does not make you redundant - it makes the job redundant. The employer is required to run a proper slecetion process etc jsut as they would otherwise and if you cannot accept the job as a suitable alternative then you are redundant. The TUPE thing is something of a red herrings so far - the same rules apply to everyone. However, if they do not run a proper redundancy selection then you are being made redundant on the basis of the TUPE - and that is covered. If you choose to relocate then you get your existing terms (for as lonfg as they last - see my previous comments).

ConcernedEmployee

Thank you for the fast reply, we will see want comes out of the next employee consultation - There maybe further questions!

BBB.

This problem is rumbling on. The following answer was issued in response to clarification required and disputing the location closure as a valid ETO

The employee’s contracts would need to have a XXX office associated with their work location. This would result in the home location being redundant which is a valid ETO reason under TUPE legislation.


They are not budging on this it seems. We have not been given an option to move to the new location on the existing T&C only if we accept the new ones with a new role.
They are also bolting on the following in addition:

Certain functions will no longer be required and particular locations no longer necessary for tasks to be undertaken. There is a change to the number of employees required to undertake particular roles going forward in the combined organisation and a change to the way in which particular roles will be undertaken.

We have not got answers on which roles will change, why those roles will change and which employees it will effect. They want to move to individual consultation to discuss this which we are unhappy about. Should we continue to dispute this or allow individual consultation?
Many thanks...

piptom&AndyPandy

Hi
I am currently under TUPE -hope this helps!
TUPE is the transfer of the position you currently do to another company -if the company make you redundant automatically or because the location for you to get to it too far it is an AUTOMATIC constructive dismissal irrelevant of length of service.

It's important to note that a lot of companies DO NOT understand TUPE, basically they try any thing they can do get away with it. If they want to make you redundant or want to make redundancies then they need to run 'assessments and or matrixing' to ensure that it's done fairly and even 'their' perm staff (the ones under the other company name) must be subject to this.

If you have specific questions pls inbox me -my source is my wonderful FIL who is a HR Director

x