Client wants to employ me direct

ThePointIs

Thanks for all the useful advice, especially as a lot of the tupe advice online wasn't clear to me

I think it's a good opportunity, but I don't personally want to do anything underhand 

The advice for the two companies to talk and agree does sound like it's in the best interests of everyone , I will encourage them to come to a deal, but obviously one I'm happy with as well

I suspect with the shortage of skilled people, certainly in my area, more poaching is likely to happen in future 

Jillanddy

ThePointIs said:

Thanks for all the useful advice, especially as a lot of the tupe advice online wasn't clear to me

I think it's a good opportunity, but I don't personally want to do anything underhand 

The advice for the two companies to talk and agree does sound like it's in the best interests of everyone , I will encourage them to come to a deal, but obviously one I'm happy with as well

I suspect with the shortage of skilled people, certainly in my area, more poaching is likely to happen in future 

If that is the case then your current employer could easily go either way. They may accept it and leave it at that.  But if this sets a precedent, which it sounds like it may,  the strong possibility is that they decide to make sure nobody ever tries it again! In the end they will do what protects their business interests, and there would need to be something of a powerful incentive for them to want to encourage all and sundry to pay their staff. Unless they are stupid,  of course. 

thebrexitunicorn

ThePointIs said:

Undervalued said:

ThePointIs said:

Are the two scenarios covered by Tupe automatically by law ?
If the parties agree can Tupe be waived?
What is the best scenario for me and what should I ask the client and my employer ?

Neither of them are. Tupe applies if the company you work for is being taken over, not if you resign and get a new job (even with a former client).

Thanks, but when I looked online it implied that Tupe also covered where a company In-houses a service they were outsourcing. Is this not correct ?

If a company brings a previously outsourced service in-house then TUPE applies,  in the same way that it would if the contract went to a different service provider. 

Jillanddy

thebrexitunicorn said:

ThePointIs said:

Undervalued said:

ThePointIs said:

Are the two scenarios covered by Tupe automatically by law ?
If the parties agree can Tupe be waived?
What is the best scenario for me and what should I ask the client and my employer ?

Neither of them are. Tupe applies if the company you work for is being taken over, not if you resign and get a new job (even with a former client).

Thanks, but when I looked online it implied that Tupe also covered where a company In-houses a service they were outsourcing. Is this not correct ?

If a company brings a previously outsourced service in-house then TUPE applies,  in the same way that it would if the contract went to a different service provider. 

It does not apply where the existing employer intends to retain the relevant employees on their existing terms.  TUPE (supposedly) protects the jobs of employees whose jobs are affected (I.e. potentially at risk) due to a transfer. It does not enable one employer to poach the staff of another employer. 

thebrexitunicorn

Jillanddy said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

ThePointIs said:

Undervalued said:

ThePointIs said:

Are the two scenarios covered by Tupe automatically by law ?
If the parties agree can Tupe be waived?
What is the best scenario for me and what should I ask the client and my employer ?

Neither of them are. Tupe applies if the company you work for is being taken over, not if you resign and get a new job (even with a former client).

Thanks, but when I looked online it implied that Tupe also covered where a company In-houses a service they were outsourcing. Is this not correct ?

If a company brings a previously outsourced service in-house then TUPE applies,  in the same way that it would if the contract went to a different service provider. 

It does not apply where the existing employer intends to retain the relevant employees on their existing terms.  TUPE (supposedly) protects the jobs of employees whose jobs are affected (I.e. potentially at risk) due to a transfer. It does not enable one employer to poach the staff of another employer. 

I am aware of the rationale for tupe.  I’m not aware of it being optional for either employer.  Employment either transfers automatically or it doesn’t i.e. TUPE either applies or it doesn’t.  If there’s an organised group of staff doing the work and the service is brought in house the staff would usually transfer automatically. 

Thrugelmir

Jillanddy said:

ThePointIs said:

Thanks for all the useful advice, especially as a lot of the tupe advice online wasn't clear to me

I think it's a good opportunity, but I don't personally want to do anything underhand 

The advice for the two companies to talk and agree does sound like it's in the best interests of everyone , I will encourage them to come to a deal, but obviously one I'm happy with as well

I suspect with the shortage of skilled people, certainly in my area, more poaching is likely to happen in future 

If that is the case then your current employer could easily go either way. They may accept it and leave it at that.  But if this sets a precedent, which it sounds like it may,  the strong possibility is that they decide to make sure nobody ever tries it again! In the end they will do what protects their business interests, and there would need to be something of a powerful incentive for them to want to encourage all and sundry to pay their staff. Unless they are stupid,  of course. 

Employees are indispensable. While there may be regret at one individual's departure. The business will keep on going.  Time's too short to get het up over events over which there's no control. 

Jillanddy

thebrexitunicorn said:

Jillanddy said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

ThePointIs said:

Undervalued said:

ThePointIs said:

Are the two scenarios covered by Tupe automatically by law ?
If the parties agree can Tupe be waived?
What is the best scenario for me and what should I ask the client and my employer ?

Neither of them are. Tupe applies if the company you work for is being taken over, not if you resign and get a new job (even with a former client).

Thanks, but when I looked online it implied that Tupe also covered where a company In-houses a service they were outsourcing. Is this not correct ?

If a company brings a previously outsourced service in-house then TUPE applies,  in the same way that it would if the contract went to a different service provider. 

It does not apply where the existing employer intends to retain the relevant employees on their existing terms.  TUPE (supposedly) protects the jobs of employees whose jobs are affected (I.e. potentially at risk) due to a transfer. It does not enable one employer to poach the staff of another employer. 

I am aware of the rationale for tupe.  I’m not aware of it being optional for either employer.  Employment either transfers automatically or it doesn’t i.e. TUPE either applies or it doesn’t.  If there’s an organised group of staff doing the work and the service is brought in house the staff would usually transfer automatically. 

It is up to the existing employer to decide which, if any, of their employees is in scope for TUPE. If they decide to retain their staff and not put them into scope, then the client cannot force them to. 

Jillanddy

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

ThePointIs said:

Thanks for all the useful advice, especially as a lot of the tupe advice online wasn't clear to me

I think it's a good opportunity, but I don't personally want to do anything underhand 

The advice for the two companies to talk and agree does sound like it's in the best interests of everyone , I will encourage them to come to a deal, but obviously one I'm happy with as well

I suspect with the shortage of skilled people, certainly in my area, more poaching is likely to happen in future 

If that is the case then your current employer could easily go either way. They may accept it and leave it at that.  But if this sets a precedent, which it sounds like it may,  the strong possibility is that they decide to make sure nobody ever tries it again! In the end they will do what protects their business interests, and there would need to be something of a powerful incentive for them to want to encourage all and sundry to pay their staff. Unless they are stupid,  of course. 

Employees are indispensable. While there may be regret at one individual's departure. The business will keep on going.  Time's too short to get het up over events over which there's no control. 

That is for the employer to deicide. If, as the OP says, their skills are in demand,  then the employer might consider it worth getting "het up" to ensure that all their clients and employees understand that they won't roll over - otherwise it would be open season on their workforce. 

Ath_Wat

MalMonroe said:

[PS in spite of the sarcastic comment above, there's nothing wrong with contacting acas (not 'ACAS' anymore) if you want some advice - I know it's a different scenario but they were of invaluable help to me before, during and after a very successful Employment Tribunal a few years ago. Am I that number one fan? Could be! But if you don't like what they say you can ignore it.]

Honestly, if somebody requires advice because they don't know what their situation is, what on earth is the point of recommending they talk to someone and ignore what they say if they don't like it?

They need to talk to someone who will give them reliable advice because they don't know whether what they will be told is correct, or they wouldn't be asking.

Whether they "like" it or not is hardly the point.

penners324

I'd suggest you're in a strong negotiation position.

Request a sizeable payrise
The new company indemnifies you from potential legal action from current employer 
Length of service is included into your contract from day 1.

Then sign the contract with these points in it.

Nother underhand