Taxi Driver Online

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

You just don't seem to get this one do you Wanna. TUPE applies weather you like it or not. However if you are aware that it may exist on a certain contract BEFORE you send in your price, you have the choice of sending in a tender or not sending in a tender. If you don't want to employ the existing staff, simply don't send in a tender. Simples.

_________________
Grandad,

Sorry but you are WRONG. The law tells you who you have to employ when the contract changes. If you choose to ignore that, then you pay the price of unfair dismissal. It doesn't matter that you jack it in the day before, that doesn't change the law.

If you do jack it in, then the TUPE follows through to the next contractor (as it did in my case), but ALL PARTIES involved end up paying up!

If the contract I for a fixed period, then state in your contract of employment that it is for a fixed period which will end next July or whenever. That may give you some protection. As for saying most are paid cash in hand, again that doesn't alter the price of fish. It depends what happen in YOUR case at that time, not what other are alleged to be doing that counts.

Explain HOW the law can FORCE me to physically employ someone?

I mean actually physically let a driver drive my car or an escort travel in my car, and pay them...

as for me "paying" (I assume you mean a fine) --- yeah. maybe sometime never

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

_________________

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

The law won't physically force you. What the law can and will do is force you to compensate those you refuse to legally employ under TUPE. Simple.

That person will have the same rights to continuation of employment that I had. They fought the law and I won. It cost them over £10k inclduing legal fees.

theyd not get one penny from me

HMRC tried and failed...........

rules only count when you play by them

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

Whats does this say Roy?

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

TUPE DID NOT APPLY TO SHORT-TERM CONTRACT



In the case of Liddell's Coaches v Cook and ors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), which indicates that TUPE provisions should not be applied to a service provision change connected with a 'single specific event or task of short-term duration', meant that TUPE did not apply to the transfer of a one-year local authority contract to transport schoolchildren from one coach operator to another.



Mr Cook worked as a coach driver for Lidell’s coaches, which won five contracts to transport schoolchildren to other schools in the area, while their school was being rebuilt. These contracts expired at the end of the 2010/11 school year, but Lidell’s was invited to bid for further one-year contracts, covering the period up to the scheduled opening of the re-built school. Lidell’s won only one of these extended contracts, and the others were awarded to another company, AC Ltd.



Lidell’s no longer required Mr Cook’s services after July 2011, but asserted that his employment transferred to AC Ltd, under TUPE. However, AC Ltd denied liability for Mr Cook’s employment, which led to him bringing an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.



The tribunal found AC Ltd had no liability, on that grounds that the 'service provision change' was of the nature excluded by the wording of Regulation 3 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. The tribunal focused on Regulation 3(3)(a), which sets down conditions under which a change of contractor can and cannot amount to an 'service provision change'. Among other things, Reg 3(3)(a)(ii) provides that no 'service provision change' occurs if the client's intention is that the activities being contracted for will be carried out 'in connection with a single specific event or task of short-term duration'.



The tribunal referred to guidance issued in 2006 by the then Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) to the effect that the Government's intention was that an event or task would have to be both 'single specific' and of 'short-term duration' to be excluded. The tribunal found that the 'single specific event' was the rebuilding of the school and that, in the particular circumstances, given that that transport contracts were typically awarded for three to five years rather than just one, so that it was correct to see the 2011/12 contract as one of short-term duration. This meant that liability for Mr Cook’s dismissal rested with Lidell’s.



When Lidell’s appealed to the EAT, the EAT agreed that the tribunal had reached the right decision, although it did not fully support its reasoning. On the question of Reg 3(3), the EAT, noted that there was as yet no authoritative determination of whether the exclusion of 'single specific event or task of short-term duration' excludes (i) all single specific events and all tasks of short-term duration, or (ii) only those events or tasks that are both 'single specific' and 'of short term duration'. Notwithstanding the DTI guidance, it preferred the former interpretation - i.e. 'single specific events' stand apart from 'tasks of short-term duration' as distinct categories of excluded transfers. This means that short-term duration tasks can be excluded from TUPE, independently of whether they relate to a single specific event.



This reasoning opened the way for the EAT to agree with the tribunal that the 2011/12 transport contract excluded from TUPE provisions simply because it related to a task of short-term duration (regardless of whether it could also be described as a single specific event). The tribunal was entitled to find that, in the context of transport contracts usually being for several years, a one-year contract was of short-term duration. Lidell’s appeal was therefore dismissed.



This EAT ruling appears to slightly narrow the circumstances in which TUPE rules need to be applied and followed, particularly where short-term extensions to contracts which are normally of longer durations are being let.
- See more at: http://www.ppma.org.uk/ppma-news/tupe-d ... XbGnQ.dpuf


All of Leicestershire and Staffordshire contracts are now the same "short term" i.e. my current one is 2013/14... and Id suspect Grandads is the same

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

EAT Rules on Scope of TUPE Exception

TUPE did not apply to a one year contract to transport school children. The contract was covered by the exception in TUPE for activities provided in connection with a task of short-term duration.


http://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/blog/post ... -exception

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

Yep, I fully agree with what that judgement says; it is what I've also said earlier in the posts; the contract is of a short fixed term duration, while the school is closed for rebuilding. However, if the contract is longer than a year, which Grandad implies his contract is, even though it's been amended by the council, then TUPE will apply.

If you also look through the TUPE links, they state the example of security staff employed for the duration of the Olympic Games. When the games are over, the security staff have no TUPE right even though security staff may still be needed.

Best bet is to agree to differ and let Grandad's staff take their case to the Industrial Tribunal. Meanwhile if I could find a link to my case, I'd post it for you to read.

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

Maybe, but his contract ha been shortened by LCC to try to get it done cheaper and in my view come under TUPE; I may be wrong though, it's worth a try.

I think ENDED is the correct term, in line with the framework for all contracts with correct given termination (available to both sides), and the council are quite entitled to do so, so that isnt an issue up for discussion.

The "new" contract will be a different route and extra passenger(s) further removing the old contract from the new

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

This is a good bit because it states that where contracts are usually for several years, a one year contract is short term. But as you correctly state all LCC taxi contracts are for a maximum of 1 year so In the context of one year being the standard contract this is not a short term contract. It is a standard contract.

_________________
Grandad,