Work given to Contractors

HeresTheBeard

Hi.

My current employer has recently signed a 5 year contract with a third party company. Because of this, over 150 job roles (nationwide) have been made redundant, and those employees are being forced into another job role. I understand that third party companies are ideal to help with a temporary boost in a work stack but to guarantee 5 years work to them in favour of your own skilled workforce seems odd. We have all been told that this is due to lack of work in the areas affected, but it's clear the work is there and been giving to the third party. We have only been given 6 weeks notice appose to the full 90days requires by law, and they have also gone against one of their own policies by not consulting the union until after the employees were told. Do we have a leg to stand on here are Do we just roll over and take it?

Brie

I'd be talking to the union to help get this sorted.  Strikes me as the sort of thing that might be moved along if there's a query from a local news reporter as well.  

Hoenir

HeresTheBeard said:

Do we just roll over and take it?

The employer has choosen to take this course of action, and accepted the potential consequences, for some reason. This needs to be determined by the Union. Though events of this scale rarely occur out of the blue. Companies don't negotiate outsourcing contracts over night. 

LinLui

I agree that you speak to the union urgently. But in theory there are questions to be asked ( which you almost certainly don't want!) about transfers under TUPE , and consultation periods... but legally there's nothing to stop them doing exactly this. Of course,  the workforce may be able to make them back down,  but whether they have to will to do so or not is a different matter. 

I seriously doubt that local or even national press attention will do anything. It's never helped anyone else! People are still traveling on P&O ferries. 

I suspect a lot of companies will be attempting to rush through employment changes before any new legislation can be enacted. 

35har1old

HeresTheBeard said:

Hi.

My current employer has recently signed a 5 year contract with a third party company. Because of this, over 150 job roles (nationwide) have been made redundant, and those employees are being forced into another job role. I understand that third party companies are ideal to help with a temporary boost in a work stack but to guarantee 5 years work to them in favour of your own skilled workforce seems odd. We have all been told that this is due to lack of work in the areas affected, but it's clear the work is there and been giving to the third party. We have only been given 6 weeks notice appose to the full 90days requires by law, and they have also gone against one of their own policies by not consulting the union until after the employees were told. Do we have a leg to stand on here are Do we just roll over and take it?

I had that happen to me i was given a choice what role i moved unto but I ended up with a better job in the end better than being be made surplus to requirements 
Is the 90 days notice you refer to the length of time to terminate you contract

35har1old

LinLui said:

I agree that you speak to the union urgently. But in theory there are questions to be asked ( which you almost certainly don't want!) about transfers under TUPE , and consultation periods... but legally there's nothing to stop them doing exactly this. Of course,  the workforce may be able to make them back down,  but whether they have to will to do so or not is a different matter. 

I seriously doubt that local or even national press attention will do anything. It's never helped anyone else! People are still traveling on P&O ferries. 

I suspect a lot of companies will be attempting to rush through employment changes before any new legislation can be enacted. 

In the OP case TUPE doesn't come into play as he is not being transferred to the sub contractor he is remaining within the company but with a different role.
If the contract has already been awarded its doubtful that it would be reversed.

LinLui

35har1old said:

LinLui said:

I agree that you speak to the union urgently. But in theory there are questions to be asked ( which you almost certainly don't want!) about transfers under TUPE , and consultation periods... but legally there's nothing to stop them doing exactly this. Of course,  the workforce may be able to make them back down,  but whether they have to will to do so or not is a different matter. 

I seriously doubt that local or even national press attention will do anything. It's never helped anyone else! People are still traveling on P&O ferries. 

I suspect a lot of companies will be attempting to rush through employment changes before any new legislation can be enacted. 

In the OP case TUPE doesn't come into play as he is not being transferred to the sub contractor he is remaining within the company but with a different role.
If the contract has already been awarded its doubtful that it would be reversed.

Based on very little information in the OP, I will leave that determination to the union. Although I couldn't imagine they'd want to work for the contractor. Just because they've been told something doesn't make it true. They've also been told 6 weeks notice,  and the law appears to say otherwise. And if they have a recognised union, not taking to them is also somewhat dodgy. 

Hoenir

HeresTheBeard  If I'm reading your post correctly. While the existing roles are being redundant. All employees are being deployed into different positions under the same terms and conditions. Why do believe that 90 days consultation applies? 

HeresTheBeard

Hoenir said:

HeresTheBeard  If I'm reading your post correctly. While the existing roles are being redundant. All employees are being deployed into different positions under the same terms and conditions. Why do believe that 90 days consultation applies? 

I have been in talks with my Union rep and they belive that even though we are being deployed elsewhere in the company, it still acts as a redundancy as the role itself has become redundant. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 states they need to consult trade unions if redundancy occur for 100 or more employees with in 45 days that they need to consult with union representatives before they commence

LinLui

HeresTheBeard said:

Hoenir said:

HeresTheBeard  If I'm reading your post correctly. While the existing roles are being redundant. All employees are being deployed into different positions under the same terms and conditions. Why do believe that 90 days consultation applies? 

I have been in talks with my Union rep and they belive that even though we are being deployed elsewhere in the company, it still acts as a redundancy as the role itself has become redundant. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 states they need to consult trade unions if redundancy occur for 100 or more employees with in 45 days that they need to consult with union representatives before they commence

This is correct. The employer may want to avoid the costs of redundancy by redeploying them into other roles. Even if they can do that and everyone agrees, that does not mean that they should not abide by the law on the redundancies. The employer is also assuming that everyone wants to and can move to another role - there is no guarantee that they can and there may be circumstances where these are not suitable alternatives. The consultation processes attach to the number of roles being lost, not the number of people. The process must be completed even if not a single person is lost.