TUPE - Role Mapping

mathewllewellyn

Emmzi wrote: »

constructive dismissal on what grounds? I don't think you have any.

"Feeling a bit put out", "everyone else got it" and "don't like the new boss" are not grounds. And as SarEl will tell you 3% of CD cases are won at ET, so not worth the stress.

We do not have trust in the new Employer being that they are not able to tell us what on earth we are supposed to be doing post transfer. We do not know what we are supposed to be doing in the new company.

"An employer must not, without reasonable or proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee." (Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew [1979] IRLR 84, EAT.)

mathewllewellyn

Emmzi wrote: »

Then what roles that are being filled now do you think are similar to IT roles? are there any?

I've looked at the job family and job descriptions in the new family and I could sit down and MAP all the roles in this department in 1 hour.
I do not know why the company are taking this stance? This is more down to the fact that the new employer is not sure whether it wants to use the new software that is bespoke to this business.
Surely they should be mapping all roles and not just some?

Emmzi

mathewllewellyn wrote: »

We do not have trust in the new Employer being that they are not able to tell us what on earth we are supposed to be doing post transfer. We do not know what we are supposed to be doing in the new company.

"An employer must not, without reasonable or proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee." (Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew [1979] IRLR 84, EAT.)

I think however they are saying they are working it out as they go. Would you prefer they lie and say they do know what they are doing? And saying "I don't know" is not the same as breaking trust or confidence. The law above is more about telling your wife you take drugs when you don't, or suchlike. Or taking you into the office, accusing you of theft, and when you are crying saying "nah, only jokig!"

No, insufficient grounds for C.D.

Honestly. You are going to drive yourself mad looking for a non existent out. Don't. You will go insane and become bitter and twisted.

Instead work on the plan for proving they do not need you so you get your package asap next year. How can you show the systems you use are not better than the in house ones? What's the plan for showing that? go to!

mathewllewellyn

Emmzi wrote: »

heh. sadly you would have had to do this and make management aware a few months ago. But do feel free to kneecap each other. that's less subjective.

I'll be kneecapping the entire HR team if this keeps going this way.
Because all the other roles in the company have been mapped. We do feel discrimniated against. Just because it does not fall into the common rules of discrimination, surely a company cant MAP some roles and not others, cause massive stress, just because they cant make their minds up on whether they want to take over the new software ?

Emmzi

mathewllewellyn wrote: »

I've looked at the job family and job descriptions in the new family and I could sit down and MAP all the roles in this department in 1 hour.
I do not know why the company are taking this stance? This is more down to the fact that the new employer is not sure whether it wants to use the new software that is bespoke to this business.
Surely they should be mapping all roles and not just some?

I'm not asking why your roles haven't been mapped.

You seen very concerned that other mapped jobs may have people put in them who should be in a selection pool with IT jobs. I'm saying I don't understand why. That is what I am asking about. I cannot see why it is an issue if people are put into jobs you do not want anyway.

They can map after if they want you to keep doing as you are doing for now. No law against that.

Emmzi

mathewllewellyn wrote: »

I'll be kneecapping the entire HR team if this keeps going this way.
Because all the other roles in the company have been mapped. We do feel discrimniated against. Just because it does not fall into the common rules of discrimination, surely a company cant MAP some roles and not others, cause massive stress, just because they cant make their minds up on whether they want to take over the new software ?

They can totally do that. They totally are doing that. And for the final time (as I have to get back to work) you have no recourse in law so best to get over it any way you can.

SarEl

I think what Emmzi is trying - very cogently too I might add - is "suck it up". You feel the employer is looking after their own interests? Well thats what employers do. Whose interests did you actually think they would look after? They haven't decided what they want to do with the software, and therefore they can't proceed with a process to make decisions about jobs. So you will be TUPE'd. What you want or how you feel about it isn't relevant. You will find that the entire of the law is balanced in favour of you keeping your jobs, and you will get absolutely nowhere in claiming you should lose them!

mathewllewellyn

SarEl wrote: »

I think what Emmzi is trying - very cogently too I might add - is "suck it up". You feel the employer is looking after their own interests? Well thats what employers do. Whose interests did you actually think they would look after? They haven't decided what they want to do with the software, and therefore they can't proceed with a process to make decisions about jobs. So you will be TUPE'd. What you want or how you feel about it isn't relevant. You will find that the entire of the law is balanced in favour of you keeping your jobs, and you will get absolutely nowhere in claiming you should lose them!

I can tell you work for HR, having obviously great people skills (NOT)

I'm here to ask for legal advice, not to get patronised by morons like yourself. I want to know if the employer is acting legally you moron and Emmzi is achieving that without your input.
Nothing you have said contributes to this thread and it's probably the case for the entirety of your life.
How about you dont' suck it up for about 5 minutes (air)

mathewllewellyn

Emmzi wrote: »

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!

Thanks for your input Emmzi, albeit a little patronising. If that's your goal then I would stop now.
Do you work for HR also ?

mathewllewellyn

Emmzi wrote: »

They can totally do that. They totally are doing that. And for the final time (as I have to get back to work) you have no recourse in law so best to get over it any way you can.

Thanks Emmzi.
What employers need to be reminded of is that upsetting an employee does only one thing.
Make them want to leave and go work for someone that does care (if they exist anymore).
They then have to invest lots of money in trying to train someone else up to do the same job ( a very costly exercise )
Employers who 'care' about their employees achieve far more than those that don't (FACT).
What this IT team will do now is not work hard and get paid to sit at their desks and browse jobs all day like other morons.