# Business law and TUPE



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Anyone here know their stuff on business law and TUPE?

We're currently being taken over and are being told because we're still employed under the same trading name that we wont be protected by TUPE.

Can anyone advise on this?


----------



## Will_G (Jan 23, 2012)

I've been through a couple of these although not in the same method as you state. Certainly from the ACAS website it appears they could be correct.



> Which transfers are covered?
> 
> TUPE applies when an undertaking or part of it is transferred from one employer to another where:
> •all or part of a sole trader's business or partnership is sold or otherwise transferred
> ...


http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Bummer 

Thanks for the help, i did brush over that bit
Should have read in more detail


----------



## SadlyDistracted (Jan 18, 2013)

Tank, hi, i've been in a simmilar situation where compay b tookover/aquired company a, and basically there was no (initial) difference, just a corporate email signature change , company a, a company b company...
A while later payslips changed to company b, then the signature also became b.

Not much to it and no real differences or T&Cs changes, no new contract etc. There were subsequent job coding 'steamlining' actions, but basically nothing detremental - although some peoples career paths were challenged - if your lucky enough to have any career 'options'.

Have also endured TUPE - much less pleasant and worse down the line :-( 
TUPE could have been nice and simple to protect employees but I think it was written by lawers for lawers, and who but  corporates can afford them?

It all depends on if the new company's better than the old one. Most employment law seems to be favouring the corporates and not employees these days 
Watch out for HR types, regardless of what they say just remember who's paying them... (and its not the employees)!

Any one know of any really good corporate employers?


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Great thanks for the info, well so far the takeover has gone smoothly, no sudden job cuts, wage cuts or changes to hours but will have to see further down the line

Hopefully things stay as they are

Cheers


----------



## SadlyDistracted (Jan 18, 2013)

PS, watch out for any end of 'role' or position TUPE'd role / position / contract...
If you want to (retain) a position with the company they're likley to do so under new T&C's. i.e. less holliday, loss of redundancy package and or any other benefits (e.g. medical, car / car /fuel allowance et.) , oh and if the 'new' job's further away, that'll be at your own expense and time :doublesho  if you want a 'job' (and that's if they can be botherd to actually try and offer you any 'suitable' alternative employment. :tumbleweed:

Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (should be had up under trade description)
!
They can basicaly do what the f they want and its 'legal'. :wall:


----------



## Method Man (Aug 28, 2009)

SadlyDistracted said:


> PS, watch out for any end of 'role' or position TUPE'd role / position / contract...
> If you want to (retain) a position with the company they're likley to do so under new T&C's. i.e. less holliday, loss of redundancy package and or any other benefits (e.g. medical, car / car /fuel allowance et.) , oh and if the 'new' job's further away, that'll be at your own expense and time :doublesho  if you want a 'job' (and that's if they can be botherd to actually try and offer you any 'suitable' alternative employment. :tumbleweed:
> 
> Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (should be had up under trade description)
> ...


That would sound like constructive dismissal to me then if all or some of the above were to apply.


----------



## SadlyDistracted (Jan 18, 2013)

Method Man said:


> That would sound like constructive dismissal to me then if all or some of the above were to apply.


You'd think something like that would'nt you, but 2 solicitirs and a Union disagreed and seemed to think it's par for the course (all they have to to do is tick a few 'consultation' boxes), and wouldn't get far in a tribunal.

1984 seems to be here?


----------

