Husbands job role being advertised as 'invitation to tender' - help please?

hieveryone

Hello, 

My husband works for a company as an employed salaried member, and has done for more than 2 years. 

His company/industry are going through a 'cost cutting' period of time and there has been lots of staff dismissals/resignations. 

He came across an advert from his company inviting companies to tender for a contract, with the description of works essentially his role (but covering on a wider scope). I.e. he covers one site, but the to tender contract is for covering all sites. 


What should his next steps be? They haven't mentioned anything to him about redundancy etc. 

Thank you 

Grumpy_chap

Where did he see the "invitation to tender" listing?  Was it something like OJEU?

It sounds like the company he works for are considering an outsourcing for certain tasks.  Is that plausible?
In that type of event, employees are usually covered under TUPE so little to worry about.  The big thing to check, if that happens, is any change to pension.

DullGreyGuy

hieveryone said:

Hello, 

My husband works for a company as an employed salaried member, and has done for more than 2 years. 

His company/industry are going through a 'cost cutting' period of time and there has been lots of staff dismissals/resignations. 

He came across an advert from his company inviting companies to tender for a contract, with the description of works essentially his role (but covering on a wider scope). I.e. he covers one site, but the to tender contract is for covering all sites. 


What should his next steps be? They haven't mentioned anything to him about redundancy etc. 

Thank you 

Have a conversation with his manager?

If he manages one site do others manage the other sites? If so has he spoken to his peers about it?

Years back a colleague saw something similar and was worried his job would go or he'd be transferred to the other company but in reality his job changed from managing a team to managing the outsourcer with a pay bump to go with it. 

Grumpy_chap said:

In that type of event, employees are usually covered under TUPE so little to worry about.  The big thing to check, if that happens, is any change to pension.

I have a good grasp of TUPE when a transaction is in scope of the regulations but never fully gotten if you transfer an undertaking if the outsourcer is obliged to take on the staff?

I've done two projects around selling a block of  liabilities towards customers and in one staff transferred with the business and TUPE applied and in the other staff didnt transfer and TUPE didnt apply. There were a few differences in the deal, one key one being what each said about TUPE, but not sure which trigger it or if it was just a commercial decision.

hieveryone

Thanks both, the advert was on LinkedIn with an invitation to tender to the company themselves. 

Basically, there are two models of working in his industry/sector. Either have in-house guys to cover the scope,  or outsource via a contractor company to cover it all. His place of work is one of the only to have in-house salaried guys doing the job (2 of them). If the invitation to tender is out, it is unlikely that they would then need the in-house guys. 

So I guess what I'm asking is, where does this leave him standing with regards to a potential unfair dismissal/grievance? 

Also edited to add - he has been through the TUPE process before - however in this scenario it would be slightly different as he would be moving from a staff position (pension, medical benefits, car scheme, rota, salary) etc, to a contractor role which would significantly impact almost every aspect of his job. 

Undervalued

hieveryone said:

Thanks both, the advert was on LinkedIn with an invitation to tender to the company themselves. 

Basically, there are two models of working in his industry/sector. Either have in-house guys to cover the scope,  or outsource via a contractor company to cover it all. His place of work is one of the only to have in-house salaried guys doing the job (2 of them). If the invitation to tender is out, it is unlikely that they would then need the in-house guys. 

So I guess what I'm asking is, where does this leave him standing with regards to a potential unfair dismissal/grievance? 

Also edited to add - he has been through the TUPE process before - however in this scenario it would be slightly different as he would be moving from a staff position (pension, medical benefits, car scheme, rota, salary) etc, to a contractor role which would significantly impact almost every aspect of his job. 

Sorry, I know this is not what you want to hear but a company is quite entitled to outsource functions to a third party and make staff who were previously doing that function internally redundant. That is a business decision which they are free to make.

Obviously they must follow the proper redundancy procedures but providing they do it would not be unfair dismissal, nor are there any obvious valid ground for a grievance.

Marcon

hieveryone said:

Thanks both, the advert was on LinkedIn with an invitation to tender to the company themselves. 

Basically, there are two models of working in his industry/sector. Either have in-house guys to cover the scope,  or outsource via a contractor company to cover it all. His place of work is one of the only to have in-house salaried guys doing the job (2 of them). If the invitation to tender is out, it is unlikely that they would then need the in-house guys. 

So I guess what I'm asking is, where does this leave him standing with regards to a potential unfair dismissal/grievance? 

Also edited to add - he has been through the TUPE process before - however in this scenario it would be slightly different as he would be moving from a staff position (pension, medical benefits, car scheme, rota, salary) etc, to a contractor role which would significantly impact almost every aspect of his job. 

If an invitation to tender has only just appeared, then there is a whole process to go through, so getting wound up now about unfair dismissal or grievance (grievance about what?) is wholly premature.

Once the company has explored its options and seen what is available in terms of would-be suppliers, that's the point at which any consultation would start on possible redundancies, redeployments, changes of contract etc - IF they like the look of the responses they receive to their invitation. Other companies might do it the other way round (consult first with current employees etc); there's no requirement to follow any particular order, provided all is done correctly and within legal parameters.

hieveryone

Undervalued said:

hieveryone said:

Thanks both, the advert was on LinkedIn with an invitation to tender to the company themselves. 

Basically, there are two models of working in his industry/sector. Either have in-house guys to cover the scope,  or outsource via a contractor company to cover it all. His place of work is one of the only to have in-house salaried guys doing the job (2 of them). If the invitation to tender is out, it is unlikely that they would then need the in-house guys. 

So I guess what I'm asking is, where does this leave him standing with regards to a potential unfair dismissal/grievance? 

Also edited to add - he has been through the TUPE process before - however in this scenario it would be slightly different as he would be moving from a staff position (pension, medical benefits, car scheme, rota, salary) etc, to a contractor role which would significantly impact almost every aspect of his job. 

Sorry, I know this is not what you want to hear but a company is quite entitled to outsource functions to a third party and make staff who were previously doing that function internally redundant. That is a business decision which they are free to make.

Obviously they must follow the proper redundancy procedures but providing they do it would not be unfair dismissal, nor are there any obvious valid ground for a grievance.

I'm confused as to what you mean by 'proper redundancy procedures'? As far as my limited Googling shows, a company can't make someone redundant when the role is essentially still available? Or have I missed something there? 

This was what I read re: outsourcing... 

Outsourcing

If an employer decides to outsource the work being done by a particular group or class of employees, this technically creates a redundancy situation, as the employer will stop carrying on that particular type of work. However, TUPE regulations mean that the affected employees might automatically transfer from the employer to the outsourcing organisation.

An employee can object to the transfer and, in doing so, will have resigned from their job. In most cases, this means that the employee has no right to a redundancy payment or to claim unfair dismissal, as they have not been dismissed. If the employee resigns because the transfer to the new job would result in a substantial and detrimental change to their working conditions, they might have a claim for constructive or wrongful dismissal.

Note that if an employer dismisses an employee because of a TUPE transfer, it will automatically be an unfair dismissal unless the employer can show that the sole or main reason for the dismissal was economic, technical or organisational, which required changes in the workforce.

Undervalued

hieveryone said:

Undervalued said:

hieveryone said:

Thanks both, the advert was on LinkedIn with an invitation to tender to the company themselves. 

Basically, there are two models of working in his industry/sector. Either have in-house guys to cover the scope,  or outsource via a contractor company to cover it all. His place of work is one of the only to have in-house salaried guys doing the job (2 of them). If the invitation to tender is out, it is unlikely that they would then need the in-house guys. 

So I guess what I'm asking is, where does this leave him standing with regards to a potential unfair dismissal/grievance? 

Also edited to add - he has been through the TUPE process before - however in this scenario it would be slightly different as he would be moving from a staff position (pension, medical benefits, car scheme, rota, salary) etc, to a contractor role which would significantly impact almost every aspect of his job. 

Sorry, I know this is not what you want to hear but a company is quite entitled to outsource functions to a third party and make staff who were previously doing that function internally redundant. That is a business decision which they are free to make.

Obviously they must follow the proper redundancy procedures but providing they do it would not be unfair dismissal, nor are there any obvious valid ground for a grievance.

I'm confused as to what you mean by 'proper redundancy procedures'? As far as my limited Googling shows, a company can't make someone redundant when the role is essentially still available? Or have I missed something there? 

This was what I read re: outsourcing... 

Outsourcing

If an employer decides to outsource the work being done by a particular group or class of employees, this technically creates a redundancy situation, as the employer will stop carrying on that particular type of work. However, TUPE regulations mean that the affected employees might automatically transfer from the employer to the outsourcing organisation.

An employee can object to the transfer and, in doing so, will have resigned from their job. In most cases, this means that the employee has no right to a redundancy payment or to claim unfair dismissal, as they have not been dismissed. If the employee resigns because the transfer to the new job would result in a substantial and detrimental change to their working conditions, they might have a claim for constructive or wrongful dismissal.

Note that if an employer dismisses an employee because of a TUPE transfer, it will automatically be an unfair dismissal unless the employer can show that the sole or main reason for the dismissal was economic, technical or organisational, which required changes in the workforce.

But generally the role isn't still available.

Suppose the company has a small in house widget making department with several skilled widget makers. Rightly or wrongly the company decide to do away with the department and buy the widgets from a specialist widget making firm (or cheaply from China). That might be a great business decision and save them lots of money or it might turn out to be a disaster with poor quality widgets turning up late. Either way it was a decision they were quite entitled to make. Obviously they no longer need the widget makes, so unless they can move sideways into other roles in the firm (and they would have some rights to do so in certain situations) they are now redundant. 

Generally if the company are just buying the widgets from a existing firm there is no option to transfer (TUPE) the staff. However if the company was involved in setting up an external widget company they there may well be.

Elliott.T123

hieveryone said:

I'm confused as to what you mean by 'proper redundancy procedures'? As far as my limited Googling shows, a company can't make someone redundant when the role is essentially still available? Or have I missed something there? 

This was what I read re: outsourcing... 

Outsourcing

If an employer decides to outsource the work being done by a particular group or class of employees, this technically creates a redundancy situation, as the employer will stop carrying on that particular type of work. However, TUPE regulations mean that the affected employees might automatically transfer from the employer to the outsourcing organisation.

An employee can object to the transfer and, in doing so, will have resigned from their job. In most cases, this means that the employee has no right to a redundancy payment or to claim unfair dismissal, as they have not been dismissed. If the employee resigns because the transfer to the new job would result in a substantial and detrimental change to their working conditions, they might have a claim for constructive or wrongful dismissal.

Note that if an employer dismisses an employee because of a TUPE transfer, it will automatically be an unfair dismissal unless the employer can show that the sole or main reason for the dismissal was economic, technical or organisational, which required changes in the workforce.

As Undervalued has said, I think your googling may have been slightly misleading. If they outsource the role it will not essentially still be available the role within his current company will cease to exist.

What will exist is a B2B (business to business) relationship for another company to provide a service similar (or potentially) exactly the same) as he was doing. However that is very different from the job still existing. 

Using an example, if there was a cleaner working for a local school directly, they were made redundant and a week later the school hired someone else either permanent or on a contract, the role still exists and there are grounds to argue the redundancy. If however they are made redundant and replaced by a specialist cleaning company then that is a totally different situation. The role no longer exists because the school do not pay "a cleaner" they pay a business to provide a service. It can be a fairly small difference between the two but it is an important one.

DullGreyGuy

Elliott.T123 said:

hieveryone said:

I'm confused as to what you mean by 'proper redundancy procedures'? As far as my limited Googling shows, a company can't make someone redundant when the role is essentially still available? Or have I missed something there? 

This was what I read re: outsourcing... 

Outsourcing

If an employer decides to outsource the work being done by a particular group or class of employees, this technically creates a redundancy situation, as the employer will stop carrying on that particular type of work. However, TUPE regulations mean that the affected employees might automatically transfer from the employer to the outsourcing organisation.

An employee can object to the transfer and, in doing so, will have resigned from their job. In most cases, this means that the employee has no right to a redundancy payment or to claim unfair dismissal, as they have not been dismissed. If the employee resigns because the transfer to the new job would result in a substantial and detrimental change to their working conditions, they might have a claim for constructive or wrongful dismissal.

Note that if an employer dismisses an employee because of a TUPE transfer, it will automatically be an unfair dismissal unless the employer can show that the sole or main reason for the dismissal was economic, technical or organisational, which required changes in the workforce.

As Undervalued has said, I think your googling may have been slightly misleading. If they outsource the role it will not essentially still be available the role within his current company will cease to exist. 

Its not misleading but there is a very important word in there... employees might automatically transfer

The rest of the article is simply talking about cases where an employee is supposed to transfer and doesn't consider where there is no transfer of staff. 

In the example of my transaction where we moved business to a third party but didnt transfer staff it was in part because a month before my deal was signed the company had signed an outsourcing agreement for the operational staff and had TUPEd almost all their front line staff to the outsourcer. The outsourcer was given the option to pitch for providing services for the company buying the customers but declined to do so. No idea the impact of losing a large book of customer had on headcount but our contract with the outsourcer was based on volume of work not man-hours so was their decision how many staff they needed, we just had to give notice that the volume of work would be reducing.