TUPE is my new contract automatically void?

sangie595

Beverley_Hillbillies wrote: »

As you forgot to mention, I've amended the highlighted text above which is relevant to your postings!!!

Always, always, always, seek professional advice from those much more qualified in employment legislation than those who proclaim to know it :rotfl:

Some of the advice on this forum is worrying, remember what the scales of justice represent, judgement and fairness, the blindfold represents impartiality and the sword punishment/law.

It's for the judicial system to decide what's lawful and not, rather than some cyber warriors believing they know it all

Being referred to as a troll because I've pointed out some members are not legally qualified, yawn, yawn, yawn :rotfl:

Nobody has claimed to be legally qualified. But all you do is troll threads attacking other posters without ever coming up with a shred of advice, lawful or not!

Absolutely nobody with experience on this board would disagree with telling people to get proper legal advice from their union or a suitably qualified person - and paying for it. What is actually sad is that most people come on these forums because they can't afford legal advice or are too cheap to pay for it.

And now I'm out because If the OP is genuine, which is becoming increasingly unlikely to be the case, their manners and attitude dictate that I wouldn't care less whether they get the legally correct advice or not. Provided nobody who really matters is led to believe that the "preferred" advice is remotely correct and depends upon it.

This thread is symptomatic of what is wrong with this and other boards on these forums. Those who actually know what they are talking about are trolled and driven away by the uninformed who think it's fun to play with people's futures by encouraging them to take terrible advice under the pretext it's lawful.

nicechap

Dear o dear.

Quite embarrassing and sad to read the nonsense and faux outrage.

I’m sure it makes sense to themselves within their own prejudiced world view.

theoretica

Note the signature of one of the posters above, who said exactly what the OP wanted to read:

stator wrote: »

Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.

BlindJudge

sangie595 wrote: »

I have no idea why that poster posted what they did. And I'm not about to start a new game with the troll. The advice you have been given is wrong. Take it and rely on it at your peril. But I suspect that your are nothing more than another alter ego, so there's no job and no TUPE.

Beverley_Hillbillies wrote: »

As you forgot to mention, I've amended the highlighted text above which is relevant to your postings!!!

Always, always, always, seek professional advice from those much more qualified in employment legislation than those who proclaim to know it :rotfl:

Some of the advice on this forum is worrying, remember what the scales of justice represent, judgement and fairness, the blindfold represents impartiality and the sword punishment/law.

It's for the judicial system to decide what's lawful and not, rather than some cyber warriors believing they know it all

Being referred to as a troll because I've pointed out some members are not legally qualified, yawn, yawn, yawn :rotfl:

:beer: you’re right. I guess we have to just ignore them.

I happen to be a HR Manager for a long time with a Masters degree inthe subject, but I was stumped on that part of what action I should take. I’m not an employment lawyer so my knowledge is limited.

I’ll call ACAS on Monday to confirm and will post their reply here.

BlindJudge

From ACAS:

Harmonising terms and conditions under TUPE

Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE), an employee's terms and conditions of employment are protected when a business is transferred from one owner to another.

Any variations to an employee's contract are considered void if the sole or principal reason for them is the transfer itself, or connected to the transfer. The exceptions are for when they are done for economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons entailing changes to the workforce and relating to the numbers or functions of the employees affected.“[/URL]

Savvy_Sue

And which of those exceptions do you think don't apply? Seems to me to be clearly based on economic, technical or organisational reasons - they want everyone on the same contract, simple as.

getmore4less

BlindJudge wrote: »

:beer: you’re right. I guess we have to just ignore them.

I happen to be a HR Manager for a long time with a Masters degree inthe subject, but I was stumped on that part of what action I should take. I’m not an employment lawyer so my knowledge is limited.

I’ll call ACAS on Monday to confirm and will post their reply here.

were you a HR in your old employment?

nicechap

BlindJudge wrote: »

.......

I happen to be a HR Manager for a long time with a Masters degree inthe subject

.........

And you just happened to join a moneysavibg website to ask strangers for HR advice.

So funny.

getmore4less

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And which of those exceptions do you think don't apply? Seems to me to be clearly based on economic, technical or organisational reasons - they want everyone on the same contract, simple as.

See if this applies
London Metropolitan University v Sackur

Still not clear this is Tupe, the business has not been bought out as suggested on post 1

No evidence any part of the old business has transfered.

Could be a massive fail by the old companies HR team leaving the employer exposed to legal action.

sangie595

Oh so amusing. It's now an HR expert. I don't think you get it. You have presented no evidence that a TUPE has even happened, and even if it did you agreed to change your terms and signed new contacts to that effect. Which part of the HR course outlined that voluntarily agreed and signed contacts don't have any legal standing? I'd love to see that module.

This is a wind up and there is nothing truthful in this. Another dilemma bot masquerading as a new poster. This is getting so old. This whole forum has become nothing but a joke full of trolls who think people livelihoods are to be played with.


PS. An entire TUPE occurred in just two weeks? Yeah, right, pull the other one.