That's right. I suppose those in charge will take advice and decide whether to fight or settle, assuming that the rumours are true about the claims, although tribunal proceedings can be reported, in that they are not closed hearings, and so those making the applications risk disclosure of whatever rewards their employment reaped. If the rumours are true, it could amount to an expensive game of bluff for someone.

When I was TUPE'd in 2009, everyone who spent the majority of their time working for Company A on the contract which moved to Company B regardless of whether they were dead wood or vital members of staff. Company B then got rid of most of us when it got to the end of the consultation period...so good job or bad, the rules, which are so complex for the employers, have to be followed and it's far too easy to break them.

We went to tribunal because we had some union help, without which I wouldn't have had a clue I'd been unfairly treated!

From what i have been told, these are the facts, as far as i know them:

1) The Spirit of 1873 are being sued by former employees.
2) O'Hara's made every single employee redundant, The Spirit of 1873, then employed the staff it wanted.

Now as far as i understand, when a company ceases trading with debt, and staff lose their jobs and staff have been made effectively redundant and there are no funds to make redundancy payments, there is a government scheme to help employees out.

As far as i can see, if O'Haras have made redundancies, that is from the time before Spirit of 1873 took over the running of the club, the redundancy is the responsibility of either, O'Hara's and they need to explain, or the previous regime and they if no money was available will have to make do with whatever the Government backed scheme provides.

Either way, no concern of Spirit of 1873.

Think most new Employment Law is in there to protect the dead wood!

Based on my educated guessing (as most of us are) I would say the problem is that it isn't enough to say the company went into admin therefore it isn't anything to do with new company. I'd say the opposite. So1873 bought the company from an agent (i.e the administator but the company didn't actually cease trading so it was a straight purchase. And on that basis TUPE law applies.

I think the case will revolve around
1) how the administrators made the reducdancies
2) can it be proved that there is an equal job to those protesting in the new company. If we are talking about some one working in the shop it would be hard to contest. If however we are talking about a senior manager/director, those responsibilities could bedistributed elsewhere and therefore no new job exists for them to come back to (i.e. redundancy of role)

If Spirit of 1873 bought the club with no employees, as O'Hara had made them all redundant, how can they be held culpable?

Were the administrators acting for the club, and therefor Ted, or the RFL?

That's the whole point of the TUPE Regs, to stop employers doing that, otherwise employers looking to sell would just sack everyone (or make them "redundant"), sell the business, and then the new boss takes on whoever they want at a lower rate.

Also, it doesn't matter if you are made redundant in respect of a claim, as if you have been unfairly selected for redundancy, then there is a claim. That's why most firms opt for voluntaries first (which is usually taken up by those who will cost the firm the most), and then first in, first out.

Also, if you are not in fact redundant, you have just been dismissed, and so can sue for unfair dismissal. For instance, let's say they made the manager of the club shop redundant, sold the company, and then hired a different person to be the manager of the club shop, then the original manager was not made redundant, as their old job still exists. Redundancy means that the old job no longer exists. If, however, the shop carried on trading with a couple of assistants, and it was managed by a new overarching business manager, for example, then there has been redundancy.

If it was so easy to avoid claims, by just sacking people and then selling the business, then every employer would do it, and employees would have little protection. Employment rights and liabilities pass to new owners. Debts don't.

Neither, they act on behalf of the creditors.

That'll be Teds creditors then?

That'll be previous!!