TUPE - Role Mapping

mathewllewellyn

We’ve been advised that a new company is going to take over existing services. The company that I work for has lots of different roles.

The new Employer started a process to MAP existing roles into the new Company. Some roles were mapped, some not. If the existing roles did not fit within the new company then those roles were to be put at risk and those individuals would get redundancy. The problem comes into it at this point:

I work for an IT department. The new company is not sure that we fit into their company, but as they have not given themselves enough time to MAP our roles we are to be TUPE’d over into the new company (not mapped to any particular role).. This is being done as we manage many software applications that the new employer does not know whether they want to keep or not.

The new Employer has advised us that we have a guaranteed 3 months of employment, but that they would keep looking at our roles and make a decision as to whether to keep us or not. This may take 3 months, this could take 6 months or more. So in effect our jobs could be at risk for the next year and we feel that whilst we were on a permanent contract, this new employer is effectively giving us a temporary contract.

To make matters worse, we are not being offered any kind of retention as is being offered at another location also going through a similar TUPE (although their site is closing).

Due to the new employer not giving itself sufficient time to do this mapping process, for all roles, we feel discriminated against.

Furthermore, as TUPE will in effect end. Does this also mean that we will not be protected as TUPE offers in some cases e.g. IF our roles map to existing roles (filled), then under TUPE those other roles are put at risk and individuals are pooled.

Other factors include the new employer carrying out activities that go against what has been confirmed in our consultation meetings. That is carrying out interviews to MAP some, but not all in the IT team?

Where do we stand?

Emmzi

you go over to the new employer under TUPE as you are needed to maintain exisiting systems, per current job, and your length of service etc is protceted.

new employer reviews systems required and decides to keep all, or lay some off. At that stage and not before normal redundancy procedures kick in.

jm2926

Given the speed of IT migrations when companies merge you could be there for years.

mathewllewellyn

Thanks Emmzi,

Whilst I appreciate that is the 'situation' and 'fact'. I see this as the new employer looking after itself as opposed to it being lawfully dutiful to all employees. I dont feel this is the case.
Are you able to add anything else apart from pointing out what I already know?
Thanks

Emmzi

It is however acting within the law.

I'm not sure what you want here - there aren't any loopholes to exploited unless your job is one people are mapped to in the new organiastion and you aren't. That doesn't seem to be that case here. You get redundancy now or you get redundancy later or you get a permanent job - there are no other options. What is it that you WANT?

What does your union rep say?

jm2926

I've been Tupe'd twice. There's no requirement for them to do anything other than take you on, with (mostly) the same T&C's you had originally (and consult with you while doing so). Or make you redundant if the role is not required, and this part is done under redundancy legislation. Retention may be offered if the employer feels there is a risk to their business if employees leave and therefore wish to offer an incentive to remain until a certain date. They don't have to offer this and you are not being "discriminated" against.

As soon as you are employed by them you are under the same rules as other employees, and if no longer required then redundancy will apply.

mathewllewellyn

jm2926 wrote: »

Given the speed of IT migrations when companies merge you could be there for years.

Thanks for that Yes I know and this worries me the most.

What we all feel though is that because they are acting in this way, we are effectively being put on a temporary contract as opposed to being on a permanent contract.

WestonDave

They aren't effectively giving you a temporary contract, they are delaying a decision on whether to make you redundant from an ongoing transferred permanent position. That is better than being told today that you are not mapped and therefore redundant, but worse than being told that you have a defined role that they see for you for the forseeable future. The uncertainty is unpleasant and unfortunate, but that also depends to a degree on the final outcome - if they ultimately get rid of you, you may be grateful for another 3 months + wages, you might tick over another full years service and get more redundancy cash etc. If on the other hand you get kept on you might wish they'd made that decision sooner so you didn't have to suffer the uncertainty.

mathewllewellyn

WestonDave wrote: »

They aren't effectively giving you a temporary contract, they are delaying a decision on whether to make you redundant from an ongoing transferred permanent position. That is better than being told today that you are not mapped and therefore redundant, but worse than being told that you have a defined role that they see for you for the forseeable future. The uncertainty is unpleasant and unfortunate, but that also depends to a degree on the final outcome - if they ultimately get rid of you, you may be grateful for another 3 months + wages, you might tick over another full years service and get more redundancy cash etc. If on the other hand you get kept on you might wish they'd made that decision sooner so you didn't have to suffer the uncertainty.

Correct.
The entire team would infact prefer to be made redundant now as the Employer is only looking after itself in this. Should they not give us a Retention Bonus? This is being offered to another site, but that site is closing. In any event, the company benefits from this - we do not see us benefitting from an extra few months of pay. I see this as more of a handicap as we would prefer reduncancy and then move to another job. If we apply and get another job now then we lose our redundancy. The uncertainly is causing a lot of stress as you can imagine and people want to leave now. IF they leave then the Employer will suffer as the applications will fail.

Emmzi

you are on a permanent contract but at risk, like thousands of other employees in the country. What odds does it make? and again,

what do you want to happen? If it is to be told you are marvellous and will be employed forever - those days are gone for everyone!

Emmzi

mathewllewellyn wrote: »

Correct.
The entire team would infact prefer to be made redundant now as the Employer is only looking after itself in this. Should they not give us a Retention Bonus? This is being offered to another site, but that site is closing. In any event, the company benefits from this - we do not see us benefitting from an extra few months of pay. I see this as more of a handicap as we would prefer reduncancy and then move to another job. If we apply and get another job now then we lose our redundancy. The uncertainly is causing a lot of stress as you can imagine and people want to leave now. IF they leave then the Employer will suffer as the applications will fail.

You can have your freedom at a price - your redundancy.

You can stay for a potential few bucks later than may not transpire.

It's a gamble and the sooner you accapt that and get over "it's not fair" the faster you can make a decision.

You can ask for redundancy and see what they say.

But nothing they are doing is illegal, so it's stay or go, and either way is a punt.

Good luck with your decision!