Taxi Driver Online

A good point, but again, the service provided may well continue. The Liddel contract was short-term AND for a specific event, a school closure during rebuilding. It's best to let the Tribunal decide on Grandad's case rather than us wasting more time debating it here.

If you read it the school closure only caused a short term contract, and it was that that meant TUPE was not applicable

Short term (1 year) for whatever reason = No TUPE

BTW, LCC add that any contract MAY be extended at the end of its 1st period.....sneaky way round TUPE?

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

LCC have already accepted that TUPE applies to this contract and advised the new operator of this and the new operator gave LCC an assurance that he would honour TUPE and has then told the employees that he will not employ them. One of the reasons that he said he would not employ them was that they would earn more being self employed which would mean that he was, in his oppinion, offering better terms. he told them that by being self employed they would not pay any tax for 2 years. however because of their personal allowances they don't pay tax anyway.
He is trying to convince them that they would be better off not being employed but the driver and escort are not that stupid.

_________________
Grandad,

I wouldnt take a Councils word for anything (especially when case law exists on "the short term" issue), but if the new contractor wants to thats his bed to lie in if hes not bright enough to check

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

The case law you quote is for a normal contract of 5 years being replaced by a short term contract of 1 year. LCC contracts are all the same length so in this case it is not a short term contract it is a standard contract.

_________________
Grandad,

IMO it's up to the driver and escort to take the said person to a tribunal.

You are absolutly correct Nidge.

_________________
Grandad,

I think the REASON for a change in length of contracts are immaterial, I see no reference to "standard" in any wording, just the citing of a year (which it isnt, its 34 (ish) weeks) as being "short", its not upto the AOP or court to set contract lengths

Due process of law (making a case, getting to court, a few delays,etc) and the jobs over, and whoever THEN gets it certainly wont be liable for the TUPE case

Grandad, just be cheaper next time and keep it, £80 would clinch it

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

You just keep believing that you are right. At the end of the day the other company are in breach of the employment contract and weather it is a case for an industrial tribunal or the County Court remains to be seen.

_________________
Grandad,

when is it due to start, jan 6th?

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

Our contract and the employment of the staff ended on 20 December. Because the employment must be continuous the new employer has the staff from the 21st December weather he likes it or not. Failure to offer the same terms is constructive dismissal and can be dealt with either by an industrial tribunal or by the County Court.

_________________
Grandad,

Just for you Wanna, here is a link to the regulations.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf
page 7 contains the bit about one off and short term contracts. To be exempt from the regulations the contract must be both one off AND short term not one off OR short term.

_________________
Grandad,

TPUE DOES go "through" one employer to another; as I've said before in my case, I was employed by my company, the contract was won by XYZ Coaches who refused point blank to employ me and a couple of months later went broke; the contract then went to Kent Top Travel who were then faced with the TUPE claim along with XYZ Coaches who were not in a position to pay as they'd gone broke, so KTT had to pick up the bill. Had KTT gone broke, then TUPE would have followed through to the next incumbent.

In the meantime, the contract was operated as a short-term measure by another operator who I was advised was NOT liable for TUPE because it was a temporary short-term contract.

So, if whoever refuses to take Grandad's former staff on then backs the job, then whoever wins it will have to take his staff on.

so councils could, by sleight of hand, simply side step it all....

who would a tribunal chase when the "new" company (after many months of ducking and diving) folded itself and went phoenix under the protection of the Lts company act?

Grandad, would you accept employees you didnt want on a newly won contract (forced by TUPE) and what happens to your existing employees, do you then sack them, and then they take you to a tribunal?

BTW, I appreciate that your losing a £120/day contract smarts but thats life im afraid...

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

Shouldn't the new contractor have been aware of his responsibilities?

_________________

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