Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BlindJudge
    • By BlindJudge 10th Nov 18, 9:57 AM
    • 7Posts
    • 3Thanks
    BlindJudge
    TUPE is my new contract automatically void?
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 18, 9:57 AM
    TUPE is my new contract automatically void? 10th Nov 18 at 9:57 AM
    Hi all.

    Hereís the short question:
    Do I need to take court action against a blatant change of contract in a transfer of Undertakings, or is the contract automatically void and I donít have to worry?

    I donít want to rock the boat unnecessarily.


    Background story:

    Two weeks ago my old employer who was struggling to keep the business going gave us, the employees, the good news we were all hoping for. A bigger company with a great future bought us. Woohoo!

    There was one condition to close the deal: all employment contracts had to be swapped with what all other employees at new company had. If we didnít sign it the deal was off.

    We, begrudgingly, signed it as the employer has great Glassdoor reviews going a few years back. The company is American and they cannot get their heads around the differences in European employment rules.

    The most concerning contract changes are:
    • Notice period from 1 or 3 months to 1 week
    • Contract start date reset

    Itís quite clear in the TUPE directives that the new contract is void, but I cannot find explanations whether I have to get the annulment of the new contract in court now so that Iím truly protected a year down the line.

    The time limit for TUPE claims is 3 months only.

    Iíd rather not as I donít see how I could still work there with the bad feelings this would bring and I donít want to look for new work.

    Iím getting better paid and have shares in the company, also many experts in the industry congratulated me as this company is set to be huge.

    I just want the peace of mind that I still have protection of better notice and continuous contact time.

    Thank you all in advance!
Page 2
    • Beverley Hillbillies
    • By Beverley Hillbillies 10th Nov 18, 2:16 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Beverley Hillbillies
    Just so that anyone reading this thread knows not to rely on your opinion as advice.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    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

    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
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 10th Nov 18, 2:31 PM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,737 Thanks
    sangie595
    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

    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
    Originally posted by Beverley Hillbillies
    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
    • By nicechap 10th Nov 18, 3:24 PM
    • 1,393 Posts
    • 2,771 Thanks
    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.
    ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
    • theoretica
    • By theoretica 10th Nov 18, 3:39 PM
    • 5,406 Posts
    • 6,740 Thanks
    theoretica
    Note the signature of one of the posters above, who said exactly what the OP wanted to read:


    Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.
    Originally posted by stator
    But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
    Had the whole of their cash in his care.
    Lewis Carroll
    • BlindJudge
    • By BlindJudge 10th Nov 18, 4:35 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    BlindJudge
    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.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    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

    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
    Originally posted by Beverley Hillbillies
    youíre 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. Iím not an employment lawyer so my knowledge is limited.

    Iíll call ACAS on Monday to confirm and will post their reply here.
    • BlindJudge
    • By BlindJudge 10th Nov 18, 4:53 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    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.ď[/URL]
    • Savvy_Sue
    • By Savvy_Sue 10th Nov 18, 6:42 PM
    • 39,155 Posts
    • 36,061 Thanks
    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.
    Still knitting!
    Completed: 1 adult cardigan, 3 baby jumpers, 3 shawls, 1 sweat band, 3 pairs baby bootees,
    1 Wise Man Knitivity figure + 1 sheep, 2 pairs socks, 2 hats, 2 balaclavas for seamen, 1 balaclava for myself, multiple poppies, 3 peony flowers, 4 butterflies ...
    Current projects: ready to decrease / decreasing on all parts of the mohair cardigan pattern!
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 10th Nov 18, 6:51 PM
    • 33,472 Posts
    • 20,228 Thanks
    getmore4less
    youíre 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. Iím not an employment lawyer so my knowledge is limited.

    Iíll call ACAS on Monday to confirm and will post their reply here.
    Originally posted by BlindJudge
    were you a HR in your old employment?
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 10th Nov 18, 7:04 PM
    • 1,393 Posts
    • 2,771 Thanks
    nicechap

    .......

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

    .........
    Originally posted by BlindJudge
    And you just happened to join a moneysavibg website to ask strangers for HR advice.

    So funny.
    ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 10th Nov 18, 7:30 PM
    • 33,472 Posts
    • 20,228 Thanks
    getmore4less
    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.
    Originally posted by Savvy_Sue
    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
    • By sangie595 10th Nov 18, 8:31 PM
    • 5,640 Posts
    • 9,737 Thanks
    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.
    Last edited by sangie595; 10-11-2018 at 8:33 PM.
    • stator
    • By stator 11th Nov 18, 12:55 AM
    • 6,598 Posts
    • 4,439 Thanks
    stator
    Why would you say this? You must surely be aware that there is nothing at all legally correct in this advice? And that's assuming that TUPE even applies, which we don't know.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    Case law.
    Google it.
    Cases where employees were forced to sign new contracts, then took employer to tribunal/court for violating terms of original contract, employee wins.

    The whole purpose of TUPE is to protect employees from OCD HR managers trying to impose new contracts and conditions on TUPE employees.
    Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.
    • Beverley Hillbillies
    • By Beverley Hillbillies 11th Nov 18, 10:37 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Beverley Hillbillies
    Case law, Google it
    Originally posted by stator
    Another example of that particular member posting misleading information

    As I said in a previous post, the member believes their correct, god forbid anyone to challenge them

    Google it, your having a laugh
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 11th Nov 18, 10:56 AM
    • 1,393 Posts
    • 2,771 Thanks
    nicechap
    Yawn.

    need 10 characters
    ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
    • gettingtheresometime
    • By gettingtheresometime 11th Nov 18, 7:55 PM
    • 4,161 Posts
    • 10,602 Thanks
    gettingtheresometime
    In my experience ACAS are about as much use as a chocolate teapot
    Lloyds OD / Natwest OD / PO CC / Wescott / Argos Card cleared thanks to the 1 debt v 100 day challenge


    Next on the list - JD Williams
    • Genuineguy03
    • By Genuineguy03 13th Nov 18, 12:58 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Genuineguy03
    The new start date and notice period would be ignored by an employment tribunal, who would revert to your original start date and go by what the law states your notice period should be based on your original start date. Also any terms less favourable are protect.

    Plus you entered the contract under duress, threat of loss of employment. So basically tribunal would honor your old contract where your new contract has less favourable terms. On top of terms that are already protected in law.

    Tupe is law, tribunals do up hold it, so it a tiger with steel claws not a paper one.

    Though I wouldn't do anything until such time they try to take advantage of the new start date or notice period. At that point, point out they can not, and that the law states they have to honor your old start dates and notice period regardless, unless they want their bottoms spanked and hefty bill from tribunal.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,075Posts Today

8,359Users online

Martin's Twitter