Some educators I know are facing redundancies at school - some jobs will go, some people will be demoted and lose pay. The school is about to be taken over by a trust - the redundancies hit in August, they'll then be TUPE'd in September.
Is that allowed?
Would have thought so, nothing stopping a new employer making redundancies directly after TUPE either, just have to base the redundancies on the T & Cs from the original contract. TUPE is about protecting terms and conditions for those transferred for a limited period, it doesn't guarantee a job.
I remember when TUPE lasted 2 years, I imagine it'll be down to a month soon enough.
My OH is with local authority about to see majority of social care work transferred to private sector (A recent budget consultation proudly stated: putting the vulnerable in society first) TUPE is 6 months currently for them. Not seen any plans from them to change the current contracts of those working there. Some of the staff will no doubt be applying for jobs with the services that are remaining within authority control, I would imagine there will be a change to the current T&C's for those remaining and for those heading to the private sector, they will be offered contracts based on private sectors existing policies.
If I read your post right then it’s redundancy for some in August, and those that survive will then be Tuped in September
Pretty much standard as I understand things in this day and age,
Not saying it’s right but new employer won’t want cost of x years redundancy payments so is probably driving them before taking on those left behind
Join a union!
If its a change to your terms and conditions yo have to agree to them - basic contract law
You cannot be given a choice of agree to these reduced terms or face redundancy either
Need proper legal advice but unlikely to be legal IMO
One's on a union call right now. 🙂
If I read your post right then it’s redundancy for some in August, and those that survive will then be Tuped in September
I think I'd make a distinction (rightly or wrongly - IANAL) between the redundancies (they ARE over-staffed, numerous rounds of redundencies last five years or so but STILL taking people on - right shambles) and the people whose roles are changing. Just seems a bit shifty to me that, a month before the academy take over and staff's conditions are then protected for some time, a number of them have to take a hefty cut. The government website very vaguely says -
"If the employer knows an employee is transferring to another company, they can’t normally change the employee’s terms and conditions to make them the same as those of the new company - even if the employee agrees to the change."
If its a change to your terms and conditions yo have to agree to them – basic contract law
Depends on your contract wording, many contracts have clauses that allow reasonable adjustments assuming notice is provided. Increasing hours a lot / significant changes to job role / major changes to working patterns would be outside of this.
You cannot be given a choice of agree to these reduced terms or face redundancy either
True but it wont be phrased like that unless the employer is stupid. Your current role is being made redundant and you are being offered an alternate role with different terms, your choice whether you take it or redundancy.
So all doable by the employer if they do it carefully, employment rights are are not great in this country and will probably get worse.
So all doable by the employer if they do it carefully
True but IME its very rare they get this right especially the redundancy or new terms thing. the new job would have to be substantially different.
These guys are cowboys.
These guys are cowboys
Then they will probably plough on regardless leaving themselves open to all sorts of tribunals. Lawyer time then I think, unions wont be much use against an employer who believes their own hype.
I've seen the opposite when I inhabited corporate world, we took over a small business and while in the process a number of key staff 'had their annual reviews' and were promoted / given payrises by the owners.
The argument was that they didn't know the deal was going to happen (I mean, they knew it was ongoing but many a slip twixt cup and lip) and so had to continue to run as if it could all fall through. In reality it just meant better terms for the absorbed employees and that a few who would inevitably be redundant later got better deals as a result, and in the grand scheme of the takeover was minor. I was quite impressed tbh, an owner selling his business could have just trousered the cash and walked off to retirement dumping her employees on the way
Then they will probably plough on regardless leaving themselves open to all sorts of tribunals. Lawyer time then I think, unions wont be much use against an employer who believes their own hype.
I think that, not sure they will - seems there were accounting irregularities at the school that the head has blamed on the old accountants (hence the need for redundancies), and the governors have had a sibstantial turnover too, there was some kind of safeguarding issue and one resigned, then it sounds like governance issues have popped up and a bunch of others have gone now the academy's taking over. Apparantly the union guy said the head has been evasive about the issues and slow to release minutes of the governor meetings, and the one related to safeguarding has been heavily redacted. The understanding was that the safeguarding issue was slow response to an incident, rather than a governor being involved in the incident, but who knows...
One of the teachers called for a vote of no confidence in the head (just a gesture realky, as he's taking early retirement and bailing out now) - 68% in favour, 20% abstained, and someone left a bottle of fizz with an anonymous thank you note on her desk this morning. 🙂