Taxi Driver Online

That should get a reaction.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Probably not the one I want though.

_________________
Grandad,

Have you considered going to the press?

_________________
IDFIMH

At this stage I am not sure what I would say to the press.

_________________
Grandad,

So by the new employer refusing point-blank to employ them, he has unfairly dismissed them. Did they get this in writing, or indeed his offer of "self employment" in writing? This would be most useful at the Tribunal hearing. I too was only told verbally that I would not be employed by the company that took over my school bus contract.

If the new incumbent hasn't worked out how long the run will take, has he worked out how much mileage will be or indeed does he have any idea how much his running costs will be? No doubt the ensuing Tribunal claim will make a huge dent in his expenses!

You need to tell the council your ex staff have been refused employment and will be claiming for unfair dismissal. This should lead the council to "revisit" the terms of the contract. Even if it comes back to you, your staff should still claim for unfair dismissal.

Id employ them on the NMW, month in hand, for the hours the kid is in the car......and pay by cheque

on a BR tax coding....

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

what i cant follow is that any contract has an end date, so the "jobs" are finite, the employees are told when they wont be needed, so how can a new contract be consecutive to an old one?...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Agreed the contract has an end date, but it is the SERVICE that is continuing. It is that continuation of service that attracts TUPE. If the service were to finish, i.e. all the kids using it were to leave, then obviously the service won't continue!

As s for employing them on NMW, that's fine providing that's what they are already on. Under TUPE the new employer is legally obliged to employ any transferred staff on their existing term and conditions or better. So if they're on £50 an hour, paid weekly, with 22 weeks paid holiday, then that's what you'd have to pay!

Like I said in an earlier pot, our late "friend" Mrs T found that out when she privatised the NHS cleaning contracts at a much lower wage. It cost her government millions.

This is a double edged sword that could cripple the tendering and, indeed, the whole business (many firms depend on school contracts) so be careful what you wish for...

as for HMG paying out millions, thats fine, theyve got it, joe le taxi hasnt, so when your tendering for that next job, think on....

(Did TUPE cost maggie more than Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us?...)

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

"This is a double edged sword that could cripple the tendering and, indeed, the whole business (many firms depend on school contracts) so be careful what you wish for...

as for HMG paying out millions, thats fine, theyve got it, joe le taxi hasnt, so when your tendering for that next job, think on...."

Precisely. The taxi industry really does have to start thinking in advance when it come to tendering for school contracts. TUPE has been around for over 30 years now, so you ought to be aware of it! It is something the bus industry's had to take on board; in fact with TfL bus tendering, the staff nearly always move with the contract. It's nothing to have 6 employers in 20 years running the same no.56 out of the same bus garage!

There is a science in tendering that the taxi industry needs to get to grips with rather than just thinking of a figure and hoping you'll get the job. I've mentioned it in other thread on here, I don't think Grandad's thread about TUPE is the place for it. But, bear TUPE in mind next time you tender! Remember though it only applies to EMPLOYED staff.

No, id suggest there is no "one size fits all" for this, TUPE should be like H&S and not apply to firms under a certain number of employees, TUPE is not something we need in the taxi trade, I for one wont be employing anyone ever again after 20 years of trying to do so, bugger that, IM the only one I can rely on

Of course it would depend on ALL escorts and drivers being PAYE which I cant see happening

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

So going on what you say (which I may agree with), small firms should be exempt. So the local corner shop changes ownership. Mrs Wannabee has worked there for 10 years, why should she lose her job just because the ownership has changed? The new owner might not want her, but "someone" has to pay her off! Either the seller, in which case he'd have to pay her redundancy, or the new owner, who might want to pay her off and replace her with his mrs. That is illegal, as is making her redundant if the job continues under the same guise. A person cannot be employed to cover that same job until 6 months has elapsed.

We'd all like to choose which laws we obey (some of us may do when we're driving, especially those circular boards with numbers on them), but it doesn't work like that. TUPE was made to protect people from exploitation. Employers (including taxi operators) should be aware of the law when putting in tenders. I also agree, a lot of the taxi trade is "self-employed" and therefore exempt from TUPE.

I'd suggest that escorts are not usually self-employed as they are not offered tenders from the county council, but taken on by cab operators, and therefore employed, even tough the driver(s) on that run may be s/e.

TUPE, like the Driver CPC in the bus industry, will not mean the end of the cab trade; work with it, work round it. I too won't be employing anyone in my cab business as me and mrsbus seem to be the only reliable people round this area!

OK roy, I tender for an escort job, my missus has the escort job and then the ex-subbie's escort turns up and says i have to employ them, what do i do?


its cobblers to expect a 1 man band to operate the same way a big firm does.


id NOT employ em, and when i get the fine id close down and restart and fck em all...

and Id STATE that MOST escorts are cash in hand

TUPE is totally different to the DCPC, if you cant see that....

From the ACAS website...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

We can argue about this till the cows come home. If you tender your mrs for an escort and the previous escort claims TUPE, then you have to employ the other person. You're quite entitled to shut down the firm. that way the state pays for the other escort's unfair dismissal claim.

"transfer of a contract to provide goods or services where this doesn't involve the transfer of a business or part of a business" Transfer of one contract is transfer of part of the business! Providing it's the same run as I pointed out to Grandad, then TUPE applies if the transferring staff are employed mainly or wholly on that route or service. If they are for instance employed circuit drivers or a pool of escorts who do all sorts, then TUPE may not apply. I don't write the law, I'm just putting my experience of TUPE forward and how the Industrial Tribunal will probably see it.

Lots of linkys on google if you care to read up a bit: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655 is quite a good one and explains a lot in layman's terms.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf Part 1 para. 2 explains what is a relevant transfer.

Bloody hell, I didn't realise Christmas TV was so boring!