Just so you know, you are wrong.

TUPE alison protects the rights of employees NOT wishing to be contracted to a new owner.

This is to prevent "economic slavery", i.e. the retention of workers by preventing them earning livings elsewhere.

I don't know who Alison is.

How melodramatic.

Its actually just to give the employee the option not to be transferred. For any reason he sees fit. As has already been explained at length, by people who DO know things, he simply declines the TUPE transfer, on or before the transfer takes place, and is simply treated as having resigned.

Of course, that would mean, in an insolvency situation, any employment claims he might have will be against the old company.

Might also be worth mentioning that the TUPE requirements are relaxed somewhat where the transferring business is insolvent. This to encourage transferee businesses to take on (more) staff from the former. Picked this up from a major legal firm's website (Pinsent Masons) since far better summarised that I could attempt:

[i=#400040Finally, TUPE is relaxed to protect incoming employers where the exiting employer is insolvent. The liability for redundancy, notice and some other payments to employees will not transfer to the incoming employer. Also, if it is agreed with the trade union or employee representatives, terms and conditions of employment can be changed (without an ETO) if the change is designed to save a failing business. The idea is that companies will be more inclined to "rescue" insolvent businesses, thereby safeguarding employment, where the inherited liabilities are not so onerous.[/i

Of course, that provides more reasons for employees not to avail themselves of the TUPE, depending on if the new employer takes advantage of any or all of those relaxations.

Really

"NOTE: If you decide to dismiss and offer re-engagement on the new terms to 20 or more employees then there is a legal obligation for you to collectively consult with any recognised trade unions or workforce representatives. The penalty for failing to collectively consult could be a Protective Award for all affected employees up to a maximum of 90 days pay"

Taken from [url=http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/8/6/Varying-a-contract-of-employment-accessible-version.pdfHERE[/url

Nope. You are still wrong.

Edited

And hoist by your own petard.

Funnily enough, I was already familiar with that rule you quoted.

As you can clearly see from the wording, it refers to the PENALTY for failure to properly consult. NOT the notice period for consultation.

There is no defined period for consultation in the legislation.

Just so you know.

There is and you know there is

Really?

I guess one of our top legal firms must have got it wrong then, when on the same website I referred to above, it stated:

[i[uWhat do you need to do to comply with TUPE?
[/u
(1) Outgoing employer must inform and consult with staff

Employers involved in a business transfer must inform appropriate representatives of the affected employees of the transfer and any measures proposed, and must consult on any proposed measures. Certain specified information must be provided to the representatives long enough before the transfer to enable the outgoing employer to consult with them about it.

If there are any changes or proposals for changes following the transfer, these "measures" will have to be discussed with the representatives of the affected employees The incoming employer is required to provide the outgoing employer with information on proposed measures to allow the outgoing employer to comply with its duty to inform and consult. [size=150[uThere is no set timetable for consultation[/u[/size, but the larger the transaction and the more staff affected, the longer the timetable will need to be.

If there is a failure to inform and consult, a complaint can be made to the Employment Tribunal. If successful, the Tribunal can award whatever compensation it considers just and equitable having regard to the seriousness of the employer's failure up to a maximum of 13 weeks' pay per affected employee. Information and consultation failures can result in joint and several liability between the outgoing and incoming employers, although the contract governing the transfer can cater for apportionment of liability here.[/i

You are aware of the TUPE changes implemented on 31/01/14 aren't you

and on that note I will bid you goodnight

You are wrong and Adey is right.
Simply look at Regulation 4 and the various clauses. I suspect that your newspaper of choice may have a link but if not try the website for HM Court and Tribunal service.
It is somewhat sad that a forum devoted to the greatest game should become a discussion board for obscure legal wranglings. But I suppose I should plead guilty m'lud.

For the early morning pink one, yes actually I am aware of the substance of the intended changes. None of them have any bearing on this question.

cya.

I am no expert but the ACAS site showing the rules applicable from 31/1/2014 maybe of interest to you TUPE experts.

It means nothing to me but the second example looks to me where the battle ground is.

As I said, nothing there that has any bearing on what the pink one wrongly asserted.

Totally sick of this thread now. Carvell doesn't want to play for the bulls. We'll P**s off then. You've promised us the earth all pre season on the T&A and bulls site. The bulls said all along players could leave if they want. As soon as the chance to leave for free comes along you try to jump ship like a rat, despite all the faith the fans have put in you, sponsors have paid to sponsor you etc. 1 week before the season starts. As a season ticket holder I feel let down and I'm sure your team members feel let down. If you think it's better for you and your family then fair enough, do what you want. As a fan of the Bulls id rather you leave. Why would we want someone who clearly doesn't give a crap playing in a season where we have to try and avoid relegation?
Bulls board, get as much for him as you can if he hasn't given the required notice to not tupe to the new co. Just don't keep him playing for the club.
Sign players who care for the shirt and their colleagues/team mates.

Agree, only thing that has him worried is the threat of a points deduction which means it will be difficult to avoid the drop, if the RFL come up and say not points deduction then I think this would not be a problem.

I'd hope the board have spoken to each player and heard their concerns.

Agggressive? I don't even remember speaking to you before. Idiot.

I bet you didn't blame Carvell either when he did the dirty on Hull in 2008, wanting away within a day of being happy to sign a 3 year contract. Assuming you are old enough to remember it.

I wonder if eventually the Bulls fans will get the same sort of weaselly apology that you lot got off him back then.

Maybe we could do a cross-code signing and go for Nemanja Vidic? He's a big enough lad, and only wants £4m a year net after tax. We'd just need to get him to our planet.

He hasn't turned up for training this week so no one at Bradford has him in their plans.

The club are doing what tey have to to try and negotiate compensation as is their job and I'd be upset if they didn't as hull's board try to negotiate a lower or no fee as is their job.

It's a wrangle between the two clubs boards that's all and no need for any further discussion or argument from us IMO. We have bigger fish to fry with other clubs fans and Carvell is as good as on the team sheet for Hulls match with Catalans next weekend.

Question is what we do at prop now? Hopefully get Evans back and Mexico hopefully getting to sit his English test this millennium and I'd be quite pleased with that.

And there you go again. Why resort to insults?

Carvell was out of order in 2008 although the circumstances were hardly the same as the current situation. In the end he made the right decision, I hope the same thing happens with the move back to Hull FC.

By the way, the Hull Daily Mail are today reporting that Carvell is refusing to train at the Bulls.

[urlhttp://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC-closing-Garreth-Carvell-deal-prop-absent/story-20584562-detail/story.html[/url

That's very grown up of him, sulking and refusing to train.

Carvell is of little interest now, what I'd like to know is who we're going to replace him with. Ben Evans would seem the most likely but I'd still like to have seen somebody with a bit of aggression brought in. I suspect we will have to make do with what we have and a couple of loan deals though.

Any suggestions on who might be worth a shot? The Mexico rumours seem to have to have dried up long ago now. I assume we must have a full quota spot available also since L'Estrange departed?

What has Clinton Toopi got to do with anything?

I hope we aren't signing him. He is flaps.