Redundancies at Argyle?

Dougie wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

The fact is, the staff have been told about the redundancies, but none of the staff know if they are one of the individuals affected yet. That's a really poor way to treat all the staff - every one of them now has the spectre of redundancy hanging over them. I'm sure that sort of treatment will do wonders for staff morale.

I think thats a statutory requirement (to give people a 'warning' period) if you are going to make a certain level of redundancies. I worked at a company where we had to go through a similar process. We knew how many were going, but now who or from where. It isn't great for the staff (I think we were all wating for 2 months until we found out who was for the chop) but I think it's a legal necessity if the company are making redundancies above a certain level.

You're absolutely correct - I worded my post pretty badly. My point was that the leaking of this information left the staff in a very unpleasant limbo. Certainly, the correct procedures need to be followed, and I'm sure they will; but haven't the staff (without whom there would be no club) done enough to deserve just a bit more consideration, sympathy and respect from Management than just going through the statutory motions?

Quite. I am hoping all service is recognised rather than just when the new company was formed out of administration, that redundancy is above the statutory minimum and that any unpaid salary due is paid up at the date of leaving rather than waiting over the 5 year period (and if that means going against the football league and their rules that everyone as to be paid at the same time players and staff then so be it)

All the staff are protected under tupe legislation, I would imagine that's why the announcement came when it did, the new employer has a legal obligation to maintain an employees existing contract for a minimum period of one year and one day.

Are we still on this ? Really who cares

TUPE legislation does not stop a new employer making staff redundant if the reasons for the redundancy are economic, technical or organisational resulting in changes to the size of the workforce.

The main reason for TUPE is to stop a new owner immediately sacking the workforce and then re-employing the same workforce on inferior terms and conditions.

Richard Blight wrote:

TUPE legislation does not stop a new employer making staff redundant if the reasons for the redundancy are economic, technical or organisational resulting in changes to the size of the workforce.

The main reason for TUPE is to stop a new owner immediately sacking the workforce and then re-employing the same workforce on inferior terms and conditions.

Yep, but if you don't have any of those reasons you have to wait beyond the 366 day period. Argyle wouldn't have had any of those reasons initially.

Hence the story of a lower than expected average crowd? Crafty!

Mrrapson wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

TUPE legislation does not stop a new employer making staff redundant if the reasons for the redundancy are economic, technical or organisational resulting in changes to the size of the workforce.

The main reason for TUPE is to stop a new owner immediately sacking the workforce and then re-employing the same workforce on inferior terms and conditions.

Yep, but if you don't have any of those reasons you have to wait beyond the 366 day period. Argyle wouldn't have had any of those reasons initially.

Wrong.

It's a longstanding myth that TUPE prevents employers making any changes (including redundancy) for a period after the transfer. But that's not how the contract of employment works, and there's nothing in TUPE about it either. As long as redundancies (which fit the proper legal definition of redundancy) are not connected to the transfer, they can happen at any time after it. Any other changes in terms and conditions can also be implemented at any time as long as the two parties agree to them.

Peggy wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

TUPE legislation does not stop a new employer making staff redundant if the reasons for the redundancy are economic, technical or organisational resulting in changes to the size of the workforce.

The main reason for TUPE is to stop a new owner immediately sacking the workforce and then re-employing the same workforce on inferior terms and conditions.

Yep, but if you don't have any of those reasons you have to wait beyond the 366 day period. Argyle wouldn't have had any of those reasons initially.

Wrong.

It's a longstanding myth that TUPE prevents employers making any changes (including redundancy) for a period after the transfer. But that's not how the contract of employment works, and there's nothing in TUPE about it either. As long as redundancies (which fit the proper legal definition of redundancy) are not connected to the transfer, they can happen at any time after it. Any other changes in terms and conditions can also be implemented at any time as long as the two parties agree to them.

I can't find anything that says that in the legislation peggy:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That said i cant find anything that says youre wrong either! When i brought my business i had to comply with TUPE legislation and was informed by ACAS evey step of the way that i was unable to make changes or dimiss staff or make them redundant under TUPE for a period of one year and one day. After that i could basically do what i wanted.

Just found this, not sure if relevant?

Quote :

Dismissal of employee because of relevant transfer7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
(2) This paragraph applies where the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is a reason connected with the transfer that is an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce of either the transferor or the transferee before or after a relevant transfer.
(3) Where paragraph (2) applies—
(a)paragraph (1) shall not apply;
(b)without prejudice to the application of section 98(4) of the 1996 Act (test of fair dismissal), the dismissal shall, for the purposes of sections 98(1) and 135 of that Act (reason for dismissal), be regarded as having been for redundancy where section 98(2)(c) of that Act applies, or otherwise for a substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held.
(4) The provisions of this regulation apply irrespective of whether the employee in question is assigned to the organised grouping of resources or employees that is, or will be, transferred.
(5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to the dismissal of any employee which was required by reason of the application of section 5 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919(1) to his employment.
(6) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to a dismissal of an employee if the application of section 94 of the 1996 Act to the dismissal of the employee is excluded by or under any provision of the 1996 Act, the 1996 Tribunals Act or the 1992 Act.
(1)1919 c. 92; section 5 was amended by the Former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal) Act 1925 section 1 and Schedule 2, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 section 100(3) and Schedule 5 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 section 314 and Schedule 12.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

How convenient is that? Announce up to 10 redundancies will be made, then all celebrate when James Brent "saves" 5 people's jobs

Where the feck Chris Webb is during all of this who knows, but I saw him on TV yesterday handing out leaflets to the poor postmen in Bristol who are threatening to strike because of a heavier workload.

So he'll fight for his comrades in the CWU, but not the friends and fellow supporters he sees week in week out at Home Park.

feckin turncoat. Sold out for a title, badge and a spot on Radio Devon.

I don't want it to seem that I've been possessed by the spirit of Tringreen, but I've been saying that since he was appointed as Supreme Leader.

Twas blatantly obvious, was it not dear boy ? Anyone as thick as thieves with the Nool, has to be devious and self promoting.

Mrrapson wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

TUPE legislation does not stop a new employer making staff redundant if the reasons for the redundancy are economic, technical or organisational resulting in changes to the size of the workforce.

The main reason for TUPE is to stop a new owner immediately sacking the workforce and then re-employing the same workforce on inferior terms and conditions.

Yep, but if you don't have any of those reasons you have to wait beyond the 366 day period. Argyle wouldn't have had any of those reasons initially.

Wrong.

It's a longstanding myth that TUPE prevents employers making any changes (including redundancy) for a period after the transfer. But that's not how the contract of employment works, and there's nothing in TUPE about it either. As long as redundancies (which fit the proper legal definition of redundancy) are not connected to the transfer, they can happen at any time after it. Any other changes in terms and conditions can also be implemented at any time as long as the two parties agree to them.

I can't find anything that says that in the legislation peggy:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That said i cant find anything that says youre wrong either! When i brought my business i had to comply with TUPE legislation and was informed by ACAS evey step of the way that i was unable to make changes or dimiss staff or make them redundant under TUPE for a period of one year and one day. After that i could basically do what i wanted.

Just found this, not sure if relevant?

Quote :

Dismissal of employee because of relevant transfer7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
(2) This paragraph applies where the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is a reason connected with the transfer that is an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce of either the transferor or the transferee before or after a relevant transfer.
(3) Where paragraph (2) applies—
(a)paragraph (1) shall not apply;
(b)without prejudice to the application of section 98(4) of the 1996 Act (test of fair dismissal), the dismissal shall, for the purposes of sections 98(1) and 135 of that Act (reason for dismissal), be regarded as having been for redundancy where section 98(2)(c) of that Act applies, or otherwise for a substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held.
(4) The provisions of this regulation apply irrespective of whether the employee in question is assigned to the organised grouping of resources or employees that is, or will be, transferred.
(5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to the dismissal of any employee which was required by reason of the application of section 5 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919(1) to his employment.
(6) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to a dismissal of an employee if the application of section 94 of the 1996 Act to the dismissal of the employee is excluded by or under any provision of the 1996 Act, the 1996 Tribunals Act or the 1992 Act.
(1)1919 c. 92; section 5 was amended by the Former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal) Act 1925 section 1 and Schedule 2, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 section 100(3) and Schedule 5 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 section 314 and Schedule 12.

No, that's not relevant - it only applies to the actual transfer. Once the transfer's complete, everything reverts to normal employment law, and there's no time period within which changes can't be made. A wise employer waits a while before making any big changes, like redundancy, so as to avoid the possiblity of claims that the change was in fact a result of the transfer. But there've certainly been cases where people have been made redundant within months of a transfer and it's been perfectly lawful.

If all my education and experience has taught me nothing else, it's that law and justice are not necessarily the same thing.

Peggys right I had to tupe when British gas sold out our terms and conditions were changed by the new company very quickly after it took over. We all had to take a pay cut and our bonus levels were lowered . But as a sweetner we were all givern compensation . The compo did not make up the shortfall in wages we all lost out big time . I got offered 1400 compo that was only three months worth of bonus. The unions were no help at all nothing changes

It's ok Iggy, I know you're poorly.

Leigh posted something that was inaccurate. I argued with him and won.

#educatedwankers

Just rob wrote:

Are we still on this ? Really who cares

Decent people care, like 99.9% on here. FFS.