Is my H.R acting properly ?

SarEl

chiefgoobster wrote: »

As strange as it may sound...I'm here by circumstances rather than choice. A " needs must" type of circumstance.

and I'd rather work in the private sector. At least things get done.
Here , it can be !!!! all gets done , not at least until several meetings and copious amounts of outside catering have been scoffed.

Ok. You hate working in the "lazy and incompetant public sector". None of which I agree with, by the way. So when given the chance to TUPE to the "clean and mean" private sector - why didn't you do it????

You are protesting too much You have nothing but contempt for the public sector - so why didn't you get the hell out when you had the chance?

chiefgoobster

SarEl wrote: »

Ok. You hate working in the "lazy and incompetant public sector". None of which I agree with, by the way. So when given the chance to TUPE to the "clean and mean" private sector - why didn't you do it????

You are protesting too much You have nothing but contempt for the public sector - so why didn't you get the hell out when you had the chance?

The transfer has not yet happened...it is imminent.
I chose not to transfer as the outsourcing company is based in an unreasonable area from where i live.

SarEl

chiefgoobster wrote: »

The transfer has not yet happened...it is imminent.
I chose not to transfer as the outsourcing company is based in an unreasonable area from where i live.

Not even remotely what you said previously. And also not necessarily the case in law. If, in law, the TUPE was unreasonable then you could have refused it on those grounds and been made redundant. What you have said is that you all refused your own existing jobs in favour of an undefined possible promise of jobs that didn't exist but may exist. These are ill-informed decision which you made yourselves but which everybody but you appears to be reposnible for.

chiefgoobster

SarEl wrote: »

Not even remotely what you said previously. And also not necessarily the case in law. If, in law, the TUPE was unreasonable then you could have refused it on those grounds and been made redundant. What you have said is that you all refused your own existing jobs in favour of an undefined possible promise of jobs that didn't exist but may exist. These are ill-informed decision which you made yourselves but which everybody but you appears to be reposnible for.

We were told a couple of months ago to say whether we wished to TUPE over or not.....all but a couple declined , on various grounds or personal circumstance.

What you have said is that you all refused your own existing jobs in favour of an undefined possible promise of jobs

correct .

jobs that didn't exist but may exist.

jobs that are being created to keep us employed by our employer...rather than making us redundant , paying us out etc....and fair enough.

We have been left feeling " cornered" into making hasty decisions, through no fault of our own. Decisions that management above us
haven't communicated early enough and thought through properly.

miacat

chiefgoobster wrote: »

We were told a couple of months ago to say whether we wished to TUPE over or not.....all but a couple declined , on various grounds or personal circumstance.

What you have said is that you all refused your own existing jobs in favour of an undefined possible promise of jobs

correct .

jobs that didn't exist but may exist.

jobs that are being created to keep us employed by our employer...rather than making us redundant , paying us out etc....and fair enough.

We have been left feeling " cornered" into making hasty decisions, through no fault of our own. Decisions that management above us
haven't communicated early enough and thought through properly.

I can see where you are comeing from CG. it's easy for others to point the finger and say "you brought it all on yourselves etc" but like you say you was cornered and not quite sure what was happening due to being ill informed..
so I hope all goes well for you all .. good luck!

SarEl

I think you are missing the point. All evidence is that management above you did think this through. They are, after all, left with no redundancy bill. Can't say that I admire it - but I also can't say that they dodn't think it through or know exactly what they were doing. I have to say again - were you so totally unaware of public sector cuts and the drivers on savings and cost efficiencies, that it did not even occur to you once to wonder how an outsourcing to save costs was going to produce those savings if they recreated all of the existing posts over again? This simply isn't logic. You are the one knocking public sector employment and management - not me. Seems to me that yours have learned a lot from the private sector.

chiefgoobster

miacat wrote: »

I can see where you are comeing from CG. it's easy for others to point the finger and say "you brought it all on yourselves etc" but like you say you was cornered and not quite sure what was happening due to being ill informed..
so I hope all goes well for you all .. good luck!

I like you Miacat. ....and your smiley face.

getmore4less

SarEl wrote: »

No - the OP has refused the suitable alternative employment. There is no second chance. Or not in law. the purpose of employment law is to keep people in employment where possible - hence an employer may rescind notice if they can do so, but employers move on if you refuse a job - they get someone else.

This is where it gets confusing with TUPE and redundancy.

If I understand previous posts, suitable alternative employment only applies when you are under notice of redundancy any change before that is a mutual agreement to change before notice preserves employment with no trials etc.

So depending on if notice of redundancy

No Notice:
Once given the choice of TUPE or stay with the current employer without being given notice of redundancy how can this be a refusal of a suitable alternative.

Notice:
Looks to me they were given a choice of 2 potentialy suitable alternative and chose the non TUPE one.


Are employers allowed to do this "do you want to TUPE or not" once the deal is in progress?

SarEl

You are missing the point. There never was any alternative to the TUPE (didn't exist - it was a vague "promise" of some other jobs that didn't even exist) and this isn't a redundancy - the jobs still exist (they have been / are about to be transferred) and the only right of the employee is to transfer. Employees can refuse to transfer - that is a resignation, not a redundancy. Hence there is no right to a "suitable alternative vacancy". Yes, an employer can say to employees that if they refuse a transfer they will try to absorb them / redeploy them - but this is an offer over and above the legal requirement, that legal requirement being to ensure that workers are permitted to transfer their jobs to the new employer with terms and service intact. If the employer has a policy in place to utilise redeployment as a first option before termination then they must do that - but it is not a guarantee of the same / similar conditions in circumstances where an employee has chosen to refuse a TUPE. The same / similar conditions is the TUPE.

What this comes down to is very simple - the employer was not required to explain the legal position or their rights to the employees, and if you are making a decision which affects your future employment, then it is advisable to take advice on it before you make the decision, not after. I can't say that I think the employer has acted rightly, but I am not seeing anything here that shows they have acted unlawfully. Nor that they intend to.

Jarndyce

chiefgoobster wrote: »

I like you Miacat. ....and your smiley face.

Its all very well liking the people who tell you what you want to hear, but if I were you I would listen more carefully to the ones who are telling you the opposite.

Firstly, it is rare for individuals to be given a choice as to whether to TUPE transfer or not - the question of whether TUPE applies or doesn't to a transfer of an undertaking is a matter of fact and law, not choice, and if it does apply, the staff involved usually have no choice as to whether to go with it. The only alternative is to resign.

In your case, you thought you were being given a choice, and now you regret the choice you made - a choice you made on a completely uninformed basis with no guarantee of an alternative role. You knew something was not right otherwise you would not have sought advice from an employment lawyer, albeit you did not follow this through properly.

I'm sorry but you have learned one of life's hard lessons - don't just sit back and hope everything is going to be OK and that your nice employer is going to look after you. As post after post on this board shows, not all employers are that benevolent.