You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wonder where I stand on this...
Work for a large US company that was bought by a larger US company recently.
They have asked me to sign a new contract with a lower basic salary, less holiday, lower car allowance etc. to "align" with their existing employees. They are approaching other colleagues around Europe with similar demands, hinting if you don't sign they will fire you.
As I understanding it this is breaking U.K. TUPE law and I guess if I do refuse and they fire me I'd have a good case for unfair dismissal, however I'd also not have a job.
Anyone know how much I'd get if I do go to a tribunal?
Thanks!
I think they have to give 90 days notice for a change in your contractual conditions. If it's a whole new contract then I've no idea. This is because IANAL. Do you have union representation?
No Union unfortunately.
Similar happened to a friend of mine. He just had to suck it up. Polish up the old CV, maybe?
Constructive dismissal?
I think I can just turn around and say no thanks I'll stick with my old contract that you have a legal obligation to honour. They can't pay me less unless I sign their new contract. Suspect they would just fire me though.
TUPE or Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001 should cover this. If there is no union, go and have a word with an employment lawyer. The law should be quite rigid here.
Polish up the cv.
They can't force you to sign it. They can find a way to make your role redundant, make you reapply for a new reorganised roles , manage you out etc
If it where me I'd look for another job and refuse to sign it (on the basis you can affird to be made redundant etc and have a thick skin for the ensuing bullsh.t)
They can't pay me less unless I sign their new contract. Suspect they would just fire me though.
Bullsh.t on can't pay you - thats just a lie. They can't fire you unless you FU. They can make yiu redundant but an employment lawyer would have a field day with that unless they had a very good reason and could prove they weren't doing that just as you refused to accept lower wages
The new employer siunds like the sort no one would want to work for
They sound like a bunch of ****s and my suspicion would be that your assessment above is right, though they may be clever enough to avoid a tribunal
IMO decide whether you want to work for them and if no, refuse to sign and start jobhunting because they'll get you in the end
IANAL/HR person/corporate mangement tosser
If it is a TUPE transfer:
Changing terms and conditions:
Following a transfer, employers often find they have employees with
different terms and conditions working alongside each other and wish to change/harmonise terms and conditions. However, TUPE protects against change/harmonisation for an indefinite period if the sole or principal reason for the change is the transfer. Any such changes will be void.
From ACAS -
I think you have to be formally TUPE'd.
Sounds like they are trying to screw you over - either tell them to ram it if you think you can get a new job or suck it up...
Sounds like you can object and they fire you, and go through unfair dismissal process. They may even have factored an allowance for some cases of this but still works out cheaper in the long run if most people just accept it.
That and possible constructive dismissal. They want some people to quit. Again you can take them to court over that and again they may just see it as acceptable to pay it out for a few who do.
Their business model is buying up companies - 1 or 2 a year then f*cking people over. Most of the people from previous acquisitions are bitter and resentful. I guess it would be good to know how much I'd get if I went to tribunal.
I guess it would be good to know how much I'd get if I went to tribunal.
Might be worth getting in early with a compromise agreement. I assume they will have to make you redundant rather than just firing you?
Yup certainly sounds so. Expect them to be well practiced at being total b'stards. Going to tribuneral costs 10's of thousands and they will be well aware of that.
Might be worth getting in early with a compromise agreement. I assume they will have to make you redundant rather than just firing you?
They don't have to offer anything more that stautory redundancy which is peanuts
mudmuncher - Member
Their business model is buying up companies - 1 or 2 a year then f*cking people over. Most of the people from previous acquisitions are bitter and resentful. I guess it would be good to know how much I'd get if I went to tribunal.
Sounds like a company I used to work for. They 'merged' with one American outfit... no changes. Said American outfit then got acquired by another global American outfit (with the same acquisition strategy as yours). Que similar situation to the yours No TUPE as the original entity I worked for in the UK still existed and I worked for them. They were 'encouraged' by the ultimate American owner.
I walked, and into much better career and company.
Bear in mind that going to a tribunal will also cost you thousands now.
[url= https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals/make-a-claim ]Fees[/url]
I thought TUPE was automatic in a takeover scenario-why would any new employer volunteer it?
One for a chat to ACAS about in the first instance I think. They're free and know what they're on about.
They don't have to offer anything more that stautory redundancy which is peanuts
Not if they are constructively dismissing you by reducing your salary and benefits.
hinting if you don't sign they will fire you.
Have you got anything from management alluding to this in writing?
Bear in mind that going to a tribunal will also cost you thousands now.
@ji it always costs tens of thousands. You need a solicitor and a barrister, the tribuneral fees are a tiny part of the bill.
Not if they are constructively dismissing you by reducing your salary and benefits.
No I get that, they will force you to spend £20k going to the tribunal first though. These guys will be well practiced at this.
I work for a large us company who like to be dicks like this.
In my experience when they take over a company they have an adjustment period where they honour the contracts of the take over. Following this period normally around 90% of the people in that company have been replaced, transferred or left on their own...
My recommendation is to push for a better deal while you look for new work and if you hear the words "market forces" you are properly stuffed...
Where are you based and what industry?
OP have you been there more than 2 years ?
What @corni says ... get your skates on OP I suspect all your colleagues will be looking for new jobs too
Que similar situation to the yours No TUPE as the original entity I worked for in the UK still existed and I worked for them. They were 'encouraged' by the ultimate American owner.
Yes, I think they are doing this trick - keeping the existing legal entity of my old company alive to do all the dirty work. They'll liquidate once they've cleaned everything up.
I think they do want to keep me, they just don't want to pay what I'm on. A number of people have already caved in and signed. I get the feeling they have to make examples of people who stand up to them as the insubordination might spread to other employees.
Have been there a long time.
Suspect they would offer me some cash to go and keep quiet. I'd like to expose them though. Can't really give too many more details incase the bozos in HR stumble across this googling tupe law.
just tell them youll continue to open and close the doors, nomatter what the governmnet/public/shareholders management say
Does the large company begin with the letter A by any chance? Sounds just like my ex-employer!
Does the large company begin with the letter A by any chance? Sounds just like my ex-employer!
No but I think a lot of these US companies behave in this way unfortunately.
Have you got anything from management alluding to this in writing?
No, they have been quite careful, however have made it clear it will end badly for me if I don't accept
If you're a civil servant the Govt legislated to enable them to reduce your redundancy package by 65% even whilst you're awaiting the formal offer. Leading by example...
They're currently paying you what they believe you're worth (otherwise, why overpay someone?). So if other people doing the same job to the same level of ability are on less money, they're evidently underpaid. N'est-ce pas?
I suspect they will say "no need to be tupied, it's a merger." Or some such bollocks.
Bastids. I work for USA mega corp who did just that & keep poking at terms and conditions.
90 day notice is all they need to "restructure" and "realign".
Workers rights- laughable .
I've made it clear to my superiors that I would prefer to follow European Union law 😉 and take the 90 days if it comes to it.At least make it difficult for them.
Best of luck.
mcgeordie - MemberDoes the large company begin with the letter A by any chance? Sounds just like my ex-employer!
Was the next letter D
Op, because your company has been taken over so essentially it's restructuring or reengineering or whatever bull there are nowadays so with that you are made redundant if you do not sign. They can easily do that with the excuse that they are a "new company" and that they have now decided to change the direction of their business etc ...
Another argument they will produce is ALL employees affect not you alone so it is a fair exercise.
You have two choices:
1. Hang-on with reduce pay then start searching for another job.
2. Refuse to sign then get made redundant. They will not fire you but you role will be redundant because they will change the job specs ...
The going to industrial tribunal ... waste of time, stress and affecting health.
If I were you I would sign it then start searching for another job.
First question, do you want to say and do you need this job?
If not then you need to learn to "play the game to get the most money while leaving", if you do, then it's "play the game to get the most money while staying".
Both have their challenges 🙂
They don't have to offer anything more that stautory redundancy which is peanuts
Surely that'll depend what's in his contract, not the new one?
Think they would struggle to prove my job was redundant when they have given me a new contract.
I read there was something called interim relief for "automatically unfair" dismissal which I think this could be, in which case you can apply to an emergency tribunal within 7 days to get your job reinstated - or at least full pay reinstated until the full tribunal. I guess I could try and string it out for 6-7 months until the tribunal on full pay then ask for a years salary in the tribunal.
Find an employment law specialist - most will provide an initial consultation free, so worth calling around. Was involved in a few mergers, TUPE has to be applied collectively and not simply to those from the merged business. You cannot simply dismiss anyone as a direct result of the merger otherwise it's seen as constructive dismissal. Find out how they they have treated your old colleagues - you may have a collective case?
It is pretty hard finding a decent employment lawyer. I have been speaking to one recently and the response times are pretty poor.
If anyone can recommend a decent lawyer I would be interested.
My wife went through TUPE last year, read up and you can fight your own corner to a small degree. Her new employer was straight out the army and backed down when it was explained to her the extent employment law she was about to on the wrong side of.( it was a huge stress on my wife and sometimes life is just to short)
Next year the company I work for is going to be taken over by a huge US firm I expect to be on the sticky end and pushed out within months interesting times are ahead 😕
Multi nationals don't care one jot about people.
Usual Jamba facts. You do not need representation at tribunals - indeed its actively discouraged. Nor can they make you redundant now because it would be obvious that its because you refused to sign up for the new contract
Moist likely is the will try to bully you, attempt claim you are redundant, then the UK HR will explain to the American bosses how UK law works and its compromise agreement time ie take this pile of money to shut up and go away
It is not constructive dismissal
As regards what tribunal will order as compensation - you only get your losses and no legal costs and you must try to mitigate your losses - so you effectivly get your pay between being unfairly dismissed adn getting a new job. top limit as well - only of a few thouesands IIRC but I amnot sure.
My advice - you need a law centre or CAB and read up on the law. Refuse to sign the new contract. wait to be dismissed. When the dismissal letter comes write back pointing out all their legal failures and stating you will be going to tribunal. they will try to use lawyers. That will cost them a lot so its worth it to them to pay you to shut up and go away. claim a years salery, settle for half that thru a compromise agreement.
UK firms HR are usually so incompetent that they make huge mistakes. US firms almost always so. I have run rings round HR in this sort of situation. Its not rocket science but most HR is useless and most US bosses dont realise we have some basic workers rights here.
ACAs TUc and .gov sites have lots of good info on this sort of thing. I have some expertise my Mrs has a lot. Let me know if I can be of more help.
I once had someone try to make me redundant unfairly. ( thy could have done it fairly but were too incompetent) I was entitled to £400. I ended up with 7 month garden leave and £7000 'cos I knew the law better than their HR and me and t'missus ran a double act on them. It was great fun watching supposed HR professionals and CEOs squirm
Usual Jamba facts. You do not need representation at tribunals
My Mrs went to industrial tribunal over constructive dismissal and it didn't cost her a penny. She won.
Stirling advice from TJ above (we're all bloody lucky to have him back for threads like this BTW!)
IME just watch the panic and confusion set in, followed by the increasingly shrill explanations from line managers of why you *have* to sign the new contract.
TJ, didn't there use to be a clause along the lines of 'carry on working under duress' to force it to the point where they actually had back down or sack you? (Edit, thinking back I'm sure there was, because I refused to accept a change in contracted sick policy years ago, and retained my original T&C's)
Ta Ninfan. We must stop agreeing!
I seem to remember something like you mention but not certain of the details.
Here we are, page 7 of the ACAS book:
[quote=ninfan ]TJ, didn't there use to be a clause along the lines of 'carry on working under duress' to force it to the point where they actually had back down or sack you?
Aren't you thinking of the imposition of new terms without getting you to sign a new contract - where you're deemed to have accepted the terms if you carry on turning up to work? "Working under duress" then provides you with a means to explicitly refuse the new terms without providing your employer with an easy way to sack you for absenteeism. Though that doesn't apply here as they've missed a trick by asking the employees to agree to the terms rather than imposing them.
Dig out your original job description/person spec, add in the additional bits that you now do, ask how this justifies a salary reduction. Not entirely that simple I know
ACAs TUc and .gov sites have lots of good info on this sort of thing. I have some expertise my Mrs has a lot. Let me know if I can be of more help.
ACAS have a helpline - I suggest you phone this.
I had a similar situation two years ago - although I got made "redundant" for a day in-between by an administrator who claimed I would get statutory redundancy from the government to make up the shortfall. I didn't and had to go an employment tribunal. I was offered an out-of-court settlement in the run up to the court case- I accepted the third offer. ACAS negotiated all this - but it took them a while to notice my case because I had not gone to them in the first instance. Good luck!
mcgeordie - Member
Does the large company begin with the letter A by any chance? Sounds just like my ex-employer!
Beat me to it Boss
My Mrs went to industrial tribunal over constructive dismissal and it didn't cost her a penny. She won.
I think the rules have changed recently so there are now initial costs involved.
Though that doesn't apply here as they've missed a trick by asking the employees to agree to the terms rather than imposing them.
Yup, any company that understands UK law would have have gone for new contracts without asking for signatures. Staying in the job seen as acceptance. Of course, all your best people leave if you do that, but hey, legally much easier.
TJ (and slow) an ex colleague went to tribuneral I was his witness. He spent £27k. He won his case and got £1,000 and had to pay his own costs. You are doing the OP a massive disservice in your posts. The acquiring company are pros at this, they will not make basic errors of process or law. The chances of him being successful in a tribuneral are imo pretty limited, they won't make basic errors.
I last used an employment lawyer and got a 30% discount of fees at £350 an hour (appreciate that is central London), easy to run up a bill of a few thousand just working out where you stand and bills run away once you start any proceedings (wihich could be months away)
@njee, imo very unlikley redundancy terms are in a contract, it will just say something like according to the policy in force at the time and that policy can be chnaged easily at any time.
OP don't sign the new contract, see if they will just pay you off and find a new job. If finding a job is going to be hard then you have to take the tough decision as to whether to just lump it. As for "exposing them" I'd think carefully about this, they don't GAS and I am sure the management/owners of your business where well aware of their reputation when they sold it to them. Do not assume a tribuneral will cost little or be quick.
Best of luck.
My two pennth
1 check your house insurance, Do you have house insurance and does it include legal fees.
2, update your cv
From then on you need to decide sign or not sign
By not signing you may be effectively getting pushed out the door, payrises bonuses will likely stop. Go early than late.
Yup, any company that understands UK law would have have gone for new contracts without asking for signatures. Staying in the job seen as acceptance. Of course, all your best people leave if you do that, but hey, legally much easier.
How does this work? They can't just suddenly start paying you less? I'd struggle to maintain my composure if that happened to me.
If they can, then comments about us having workers rights are inaccurate!
This MAY help, especially page 7 - good tips on best practice.
Good luck, stay calm, be polite, take notes, be constructive - let them be the dicks, and keep the moral and practical high ground
IME involving lawyers quickly becomes uneconomic. I was in the odd situation of being on both sides of this recently - dont ask - and lessons learned
1. Dont assume the company is right or that thy have taken correct legal advice
2. Try to be constructive - as soon as you sound letigious (?) the shutters come down
3. Dont expect HR to help/be on your side
4. Stay calm, let them sweat the details. They should know the law. See if they do, but in a polite way
5. Use the Japanese version of "Yes" ie, yes I have heard you but this doesn't mean I agree. It unsettles people!!
Good luck
Have got legal cover on my home insurance, but not sure how comprehensive this is given it is only an extra £20.
All seems like a strange business strategy to me. They'll lose the best people and the people who do stay are so resentful they arent exactly working too hard
4. Stay calm, let them sweat the details. They should know the law. See if they do, but in a polite way
I get the feeling they don't know the law, the HR people aren't in the UK and think they are unaware of all the differences between the different European locations.
The acquiring company are pros at this, they will not make basic errors of process or law.
No doubt some department in the company will know the exact law and how to apply it correctly, but that department is not necessarily who OP will be dealing with at present. I work for either the 2nd or 3rd largest company in the world (don't know which, top 3 anyway). Companies like that understand what they can and can't do, I agree. Individuals within the company though, for example my manager... He refused to grant me both paternity leave and parental leave because they fall within an expected busy period. A quick chat with HR put him right, but up to that point he was adamant that paternity leave was granted at the discretion of the company.
They can't just suddenly start paying you less?
There is very little they can do "suddenly" that isn't prohibited, but if they follow all the rules on timescales, negotiation period, let any unions have their say etc, they can do what they want/need.
I have worked in M&A on different sides and have just been involved in an (unwelcome) acquisition myself by a serial acquirer who claims expertise in this area, Experience from its suggest that it is unwise to assume that companies know what they are doing, It never fails to amaze me at how poor people are at acquisition and how poorly they understand the legal, operational and financial aspects of the process. They are often in too much of a rush and often blinded by deal fever.
In the last situation, my lawyer coud no believe how crass the acquirer was. I was armed with the legal facts and let them be known in a calm manner. They backed down when they knew I knew what the law was. Cost me just under <£1k for the advcie but interestingly my lawyers advise was if they decided to play hard ball - even if wrong - that it would be uneconomic to challenge them legally. Fortunately they blinked first!!!
Not pleasant so good luck.
P.S. even if they are being AHs try to separate the people from the situation - even the HR people. They often hate the process too.
UK firms HR are usually so incompetent that they make huge mistakes. US firms almost always so. I have run rings round HR in this sort of situation. Its not rocket science but most HR is useless and most US bosses dont realise we have some basic workers rights here.
Spot on. Particularly regarding HR competence in this country. Stand your ground and start working on plan B. Good luck.
I'm no expert but I know how to spell tribunal
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the new employers actions, there's one thing obvious.
You are going to be working for a bunch of arseholes.
When the shit hose comes out, you will be sprayed with it liberally. Your self esteem will suffer, you'll probably get depressed, and then find it difficult to present a confident competent image to a prospective employer.
So the best thing is to get out now before it happens. You have a legitimate reason.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the new employers actions, there's one thing obvious.
You are going to be working for a bunch of arseholes.
When the shit hose comes out, you will be sprayed with it liberally. Your self esteem will suffer, you'll probably get depressed, and then find it difficult to present a confident competent image to a prospective employer.
So the best thing is to get out now before it happens. You have a legitimate reason.
That is what I'm thinking. A lot of the people I've met in the new company from previous acquisitions fit that description. I worked pretty hard in the last place and had a good reputation, but get the feeling I could cut my hours and effort right back and no one would really notice or care. I guess if they want to realign my pay and benefits with their UK staff, I can also realign my effort and attainment to match. Not healthy long term though.
What a bunch of ass hats you work for now..
I can't add anything that's not already been said but if it was me and I got paid less, I'd probably work less. I just couldn't help it. I always was an akward sod.
Get the CV in order. I'm sure your competitors will get wind of what's going on so the quicker you leave, the better.
Remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.
If your employer is the same company as before, but that has a new parent company, in my understanding TUPE doesn't apply. It only applies if the workforce or a defined section of the workforce are transferred to a different employer, including a new company formed by merging. The terms take-over and merger are sometimes used imprecisely, check what has actually happened.
https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/overview
I have had the same stunt tried, I told them to bugger off, they left me on the same terms. All turned out well as i am earning double now as I was then.
I would say if they are trying to f u over, they will have budgeted for some settlement costs.
Jamba - just because your friend was stupid and spent all that money on lawyers does not mean that you have to. It is actively discouraged hence costs are not available to either sidee. I have prepped folk for tribunals a few times and everytime the employer backed down and paid up. My missus used to do it for a living and has won dozens of tribunals.
Its you that is doing him a disservice trying to frighten him off with illinformed nonsense. Suits your far right agenda I suppose
Just 'cos you know idiots doesn't mean everyone is one.
I did also point him in the direction of good quality information and support. anyone well prepared and articulate can win tribunals. A tribunal where the company brings in high powered lawyers against someone representing themselves the tribunal chair will bend over backwards to help the layperson.
I have been involved as a mainplayer and superficially in a number of cases, In every one the employer made basic legal errors.