TUPE staff take our jobs

Submitted by Lazlow on Thu, 30/06/2011 - 9:09pm

Hi all

I currently work for the CTF programme in the Yorkshire and Humber region. I am on a permanent contract and have been served my 90 day consultancy, I work for a prime that has won WP and has TUPE'd across in excess of 50 staff from other W2W providers, my company are making me redundant and they are giving the jobs to the TUPE staff first instead of the existing staff. Is this legal?

‹ An open question to G4S Peopleserve has now closed its doors ›
Submitted by Ozzy1969 on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 9:31am.

Check Your employment contract and contact Acas, they will give you advice the rule used to be the Job is redundant and not the person, they also can not employ someone else in your position for at least 3 months but there are loop holes for this such as Job title or Job Description.

Submitted by stan.glide on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:38am.

Basically it is happening all over the place. All W2W jobs cease to exist. When TUPE is applied they are putting the same criteria to there current staff. At least one oranisation I know of TUPE'd out its own staff into a central pool. Then TUPE'd them back along with others. Daft I know.

What is does do is put all staff on the same level re redundancy.

The issue I think you are referring to is probably related to that. I suspect you were delivering a provision not eligable for TUPE. And you are being replaced by staff that were on eligable provisions.

Either way many of the TUPE staff will also be made redundant. The key being that if your company hadn't TUPE'd staff many of your colleagues would still be made redundant. Too many staff not enough job roles.

The 90 day consultancy notice doesn't mean you WILL be made redundant it means you and the TUPE staff will go through some kind of selection process to see if you can fill one of the new roles. If not then redundany beckons

Submitted by smigger15 on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:54pm.

Hi Lazlow, unfortunately, they are not your jobs to take. We are all in this together, your company has done exactly as stan.glide has stated, so we are all now on a level playing field. Good luck with any interviews everyone involved.

Submitted by Lazlow on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:56pm.

Thanks for your replies and yours smigger15, I understand where your coming from but the way I see it they are our jobs, I work for the company not the contract, It was our hard work that helped win the contract. Yes TUPE staff do need to be considered for the roles but surely as a current employee I also have the right to apply for the role? I may not have made myself clear about this earlier but the current team running the CTF programme will not be invited to apply for the WP roles so it is not really a level playing field. I used to run a business that worked with various contracts, If I recruited new staff every time a new contract came in then I would have been put in a straight jacket and carted off.

I am not saying that the TUPE staff should not get a look in but ethics would suggest that the existing staff should be given a chance too.

Submitted by Prometheus on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:05pm.

From recollection, I can't recall any outcry from minimum grade Admin Clerks in the Employment Service (or Job Centre Plus) when their jobs were outsourced to some uppity W2W organisation ..... with the staff then being paid at a lower rate.

Submitted by Mediator on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 9:31pm.

From what I have seen and heard so far there is an awful lot of shady things going on. Check with www.tribunalwizard.com to see if you have a tribunal claim!!! I am told that only the tribunal can decide if TUPE rules apply.

Submitted by smigger15 on Sat, 02/07/2011 - 9:09am.

Lazlow, totally agree with you, you should all be considered. Not fair at all. Everyone should be invited to apply for WP jobs available.

Submitted by stan.glide on Sat, 02/07/2011 - 9:10am.

Its the same principle applied in the education sector. All teachers teach. When IT became a school subject it would have been delivered by all teachers from a variety of subjects (to keep their contact hours up).

Take an example where a typing and shorthand teacher had an interest in computing. Typing lessons will have been on the wain. So they do a bit of IT, but they are still a typing teacher. However, there is a common element between the subjects - keyboard skills.

IT in education expanded and shorthand and typing disappeared. The typing and shorthand teacher was made redundant and a brand new IT graduate is installed to deliver IT. Including keyboard skills. BUT the subject of typing and shorthand disappeared so did the job of typing and shorthand teacher.

One or more of the primes has decided that the only provisions that relate to the whole of WP are FND and ND. In other words all other provisions are being considered as 'typing and shorthand' whereas WP, FND and ND are 'IT'.

I am not saying that it is right to do so but illustrating the thinking behind your situation.

Submitted by Lazlow on Mon, 04/07/2011 - 11:50pm.

Thanks for your comments, I will take this all on-board while considering my options.

Submitted by smiffypro on Fri, 08/07/2011 - 9:54am.

I think it's more likely that because you work on CTF, it's not a legacy programme which is why people from FND are being transferred to Work Programme.

CTF is not being replaced (so to speak). The reason why staff from other providers are coming over from Flexible New Deal is because the Wok Programme is a legacy contract, so that business is technically transferring to whoever one the contract.

It's dependant on what job you do (and the contract), not the company you work for unfortunately.