TUPE Pay Rise

Julietuber

Some of us were tuped into our present company in 2016, we have been told that we will not be getting a pay rise this year, although staff on the company terms and conditions will, is this legal?

[Deleted User]

Yes, unless pay rises are guaranteed in your contracts.

leonj

If you are already getting more than other staff doing the same job, you will probably never get a pay rise until they are on the same level

Jillanddy

leonj said:

If you are already getting more than other staff doing the same job, you will probably never get a pay rise until they are on the same level

How do you know any of that? There's no evidence they are getting paid more,  less or the same. And no evidence the company are trying to equalise pay. They could easily be trying to force people onto new contracts. Or some other reason.  Without any better information there's no reason to make assumptions. 

Thrugelmir

Jillanddy said:

leonj said:

If you are already getting more than other staff doing the same job, you will probably never get a pay rise until they are on the same level

How do you know any of that? There's no evidence they are getting paid more,  less or the same. And no evidence the company are trying to equalise pay. They could easily be trying to force people onto new contracts. Or some other reason.  Without any better information there's no reason to make assumptions. 

Good practice is to standardise contractual terms. Not unusual for TUPE employees to be on better all round contracts (including all benefits) than existing employees. In these Covid times cost pressures will come into play.  

Jillanddy

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

leonj said:

If you are already getting more than other staff doing the same job, you will probably never get a pay rise until they are on the same level

How do you know any of that? There's no evidence they are getting paid more,  less or the same. And no evidence the company are trying to equalise pay. They could easily be trying to force people onto new contracts. Or some other reason.  Without any better information there's no reason to make assumptions. 

Good practice is to standardise contractual terms. Not unusual for TUPE employees to be on better all round contracts (including all benefits) than existing employees. In these Covid times cost pressures will come into play.  

That may be the case. And it might be true of some employers. But there is still nothing in the original post that provides evidence this is what is happening.

Is not unusual for TUPE employees to be on worse terms either. 

TheSpiddalKid

Thrugelmir said:

Good practice is to standardise contractual terms. 

Employers are free to offer better standards but employees are free to reject it and stay on their original terms and conditions. Any attempt to enforce a change in T&C's by reason of harmonisation is likely to fall foul of being as a consequence of the transfer, which would be in breach of TUPE regulations.

Jillanddy

TheSpiddalKid said:

Thrugelmir said:

Good practice is to standardise contractual terms. 

Employers are free to offer better standards but employees are free to reject it and stay on their original terms and conditions. Any attempt to enforce a change in T&C's by reason of harmonisation is likely to fall foul of being as a consequence of the transfer, which would be in breach of TUPE regulations.

It really isn't. TUPE protections are largely overrated. They protect terms at the point of transfer, but for many reasons it is relatively easy to undermine them thereafter. 

Farside71

Jillanddy said:

It really isn't. TUPE protections are largely overrated. They protect terms at the point of transfer, but for many reasons it is relatively easy to undermine them thereafter. 

This is particularly true in large companies in my experience as the number of opportunities available to you with your existing terms decreases,  and to develop your career within the organisation anything interesting requires a move to another contract.  You may end up with skills that lag behind thus limiting opportunities further.

TheSpiddalKid

Jillanddy said:

It really isn't. TUPE protections are largely overrated. They protect terms at the point of transfer, but for many reasons it is relatively easy to undermine them thereafter. 

I don't deny that organisations may be inventive with how they may get around the law. However, the law is still clear that attempts to make changes to terms and conditions may fall foul. There are cases at the court of appeal, such as Hazel v Manchester college,  where cost-saving were cited as the principal reason where the court of appeal gave it short-shift.

My personal experience is organisations get away with more than they should more because of ignorance or an unwillingness to fight it than due to ambiguity or lack of enforceability of the law.   

Jillanddy

TheSpiddalKid said:

Jillanddy said:

It really isn't. TUPE protections are largely overrated. They protect terms at the point of transfer, but for many reasons it is relatively easy to undermine them thereafter. 

I don't deny that organisations may be inventive with how they may get around the law. However, the law is still clear that attempts to make changes to terms and conditions may fall foul. There are cases at the court of appeal, such as Hazel v Manchester college,  where cost-saving were cited as the principal reason where the court of appeal gave it short-shift.

My personal experience is organisations get away with more than they should more because of ignorance or an unwillingness to fight it than due to ambiguity or lack of enforceability of the law.   

That may be true, but the fact remains that TUPE protections are significantly more limited than people assume. A few cases where the employer has incorrectly applied ETO does not counterbalance the many thousands of situations where employers do correctly apply ETO arguments. These are not employers "getting around the law", they are cases of employers using the law.