Help! TUPE and commission query

nosraepl

Hi,

Quick question re TUPE and commission payments:

OH firm transferred ownership on 2/12/11 and they want to change his commission structure and benefits package. Can they?

His contract details his basic, his comission structure and sets out fuel as a benefit and states "changes in your salary in relation to salary reviews will be confirmed to you in writing". In the four years he has been there there have been no reviews, (small family run firm), therefore no changes.

The new firm (large group ltd co not plc) have proposed a more complex commission structure, a small increase in basic (11%) and no fuel. We have calculated that we will be around £200 a month worse off (assuming he hits most of the targets, most of the time as it's a funny points system), mainly due to fuel costs from 80m daily round trip. In discussions with his manager (from the new firm) they have stated "no body in the group gets fuel as a benefit" and that if he doesn't sign they will just write to him to confirm the changes, effectively sacking and rehiring him, that really he has no choice. He did try to negotiate a higher basic than they were offering to offset the loss but was told the package was the same as the other BM's in the group.

We were under the impression from TUPE that his contract and therefore his commission structure was protected and they could only alter it for economic reasons not harmony. We thought they would eventually try to get him to move to a new scheme but not a week after taking over. I'm sure they would try to argue economic reasons, but their new plan is based on selling 500+ annual amount of units so they plan to increase business dramatically, currently sell 200.

Can anyone shed any light? I thought we were sure of where we stood but now am not so sure?

Any advice gratefully received!

Thanks

SarEl

Economic, technical or organisational reasons

"Harmonisation of conditions" falls under the latter category.

Jarndyce

SarEl wrote: »

Economic, technical or organisational reasons

"Harmonisation of conditions" falls under the latter category.

I don't agree (sorry!). Harmonising for harmonising's sake is not an ETO reason. London Metropolitan University v Sackur (UKEAT/0286/06/ZT)

SarEl

Harmonsation still falls under the latter category though! Whether it can be justified in law under any of the categories is an entirely different matter and one which the OP didn't ask. But since we have no explanation about the employers reasons then it is impossible to give even a best guess as to whether there is a case - and that is assuming that the OP's OH is willing to take a case against their employer in the first place, because it can only be tested legally - as we both know there is no pro-forma "you can't do this" that stops the employer making changes.

nosraepl

Thanks for the replies.

They haven't given a reason for the changes, they are starting with the BM dept and we assume they will quickly work throught the sales team, admin etc. We think BMs have been done first as they have to FSA compliant, so they need to know if they are staying or leaving.

It felt like a "grey" area, so thanks for the advice. We have spoken with ACAS who suggested letting them do it and then raising a grievance for breach of contract. But to be honest I think they have bigger balls (and deeper pockets) than we have to push a case either way. Not sure we want to start the festive period with feverent jobhunting, so I think OH will sign and quietly put the feelers out for something else.

Thanks again for posting.