Employment Laws.

Emmzi

Just to clarify - you are either TUPE eligible or you are not. You were. There is no real element of choice unless you secure a different internal role.

Mark_h_4

I have been told I can log an official Greievence about this however from a legal point of view would I be able to take action? Could I start legal proceedings etc?

ohreally

I would give serious consideration to prosecuting a grievance, if the outcome is your case is upheld I would then expect the reimbursement to be forthcoming, however the caveat is that the employer may uphold your claim and play silly beggars and use you grievance to potentially discipline your line manager.

DVardysShadow

OK, something which may be helpful if you answer:

You say you cover 3 sites or 2. Do you ever have to split your day between sites? Or is it always a whole day at any site? Do you ever get told to move from 1 site to another during the day?

Mark_h_4

I should work at 3 sites. I have been told this is now only 2. I normally work at the morning in one and then move over to another in the afternoon.

However company policy is if you are a "mobile" engineer then you can claim any milage after you leave your house because you dont have a office so to speak.

I spoke to one legal expert and they said I should have a case for being "miss represented" and that they had basically adminited fault in the e-mail conversation.

Mark_h_4

Misrepresentation is a contract law concept. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract.
For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation.
A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors which can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement with the intention of inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:
· A false statement of fact has been made,
· The statement was directed at the party
· The statement had acted to induce the party to contract.
Negligent mis-statement at common law
Until 1963, damages could only be claimed for misrepresentation where it was fraudulent. All non-fraudulent misrepresentations were classed as “innocent” and damages were not available for such innocent misrepresentations. In 1963, the House of Lords stated, obiter, in Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 that in certain circumstances damages may be recoverable in tort for negligent mis-statement causing financial loss. The liability depends on a duty of care arising from a “special relationship” between the parties. It is now clear that a party can claim damages under the principle in Hedley Byrne where a negligent mis-statement has induced him to enter a contract; Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon (1976) QB 801. Broadly speaking, the special relationship will only arise where the maker of the statement possesses knowledge or skill relevant to the subject matter of the contract and can reasonably foresee that the other party will rely on the statement.


Section 2(1) of the Act of 1967 introduced, for the first time, a statutory claim for damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation. Section 2(1) provides that where a person has entered a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another part thereto and a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.
It should be noted that the sub-section assumes all non-fraudulent statements to be negligent and puts the burden on the maker of the statement to disprove negligence.

Does this make some sort of sense?