I am in a similiar position having just recently been Tupe'd over, 1st April.

Already my new employer has issued new job role/descriptions very different from my previous employer. They have also stated that they intend to harmomise use, which means for me a £6000 pay decrease, which they state will apply after a period of pay protection.

In summary they are changing my role, decreasing my pay and increasing my hours from 35 to 37/5. Are they allowed to do this or can I refuse under the grievance process.

Any information would be helpful

Hello and welcome to CAG.

I've started a new thread for you, rather than leaving you on someone else's old one. The forum guys should be along over the course of the day with advice for you.

My best, HB

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/transfers-of-employment-contracts

While i have little knowledge of this have a look at the link above, there are team members with far more knowledge

If you view that the change in terms is unfair, I am guessing that is a bit obvious, then the changes cannot be forced upon you.

You should follow a grievance procedure internally, and establish the business reasons for the changes. Material changes such as this need to have a sound reasons, otherwise the risk to the employer is that you can resign and claim constructive and therefore unfair dismissal, for breach of contract.

How long is your continuous service ?

Are there other employees that have TUPE'd contracts, being treated the same as you ?

How were the new terms communicated to you, ie are you simply being told, or has there been consultation /one to one meetings to discuss the changes ?

Is there a Union in the workplace ?

I have over 8 yrs continuous service and there a 6 other employees, who range from 3 up to 10 years. The changes in role/job description were emailed to me 16th May prior to my consultation on Thurs 19th. I feel that I should ask for an extension and also ask them to provide written information regarding the changes proposed. I'm guessing they need to be either Economical, Organisational or Technical rather than just because of the transfer.

If you have a union rep you need to get them involved too

I am not in a union although we are giving the opportunity to have a Union rep present during the consultation if we want. Not sure how supportive this person is, due to my previous experience. In the past I felt they were biased towards the company.

During my consultation I informed them that I would be following the grievance process, however they stated that this can't happen whilst things are still in the proposed stage. Is this right???

Correct as it is still in the consultation stage and nothing has been agreed yet. Now if you were in a Trade Union they would be able to register a Disagreement and put everything on hold until that Disagreement had been rectified

TUPE is now not worth the paper it is written on as long as the employer can show economical, technical or organisational reason for any changes after harmonisation of contracts.

TUPE is simple in many respects, but overly complicated in others, and in disputes such as this you would be well advised to seek professional advice as it is not something that can easily be advised upon simply on the facts given.

On the face of it, I would say that the employer would be hard-pressed to make a credible ETO case for harmonising contracts immediately after a transfer. Whichever way you look at things, your T&Cs are being changed simply because you have transferred to a new employer. 'Harmonisation' would be where all employees are subject to change. To simply take one part of the workforce and reduce pay and benefits and calling it 'harmonisation' would, in my opinion, be entirely contrary to the principles of TUPE, as the acquisition of new staff is the sole reason for the change.

Whilst the employer may well cry that a change is necessary due to ETO reasons, there is still the suffix to that term which states - requiring a change in the workforce. The workforce is made up of staff on old contracts and newly acquired ones therefore the ETO reasons must apply to all - or none. An ETO reason might well be that the business has lost substantial orders or suffered from a SUDDEN change in the market - not that the employer simply wants to reduce costs. His decision to acquire the business was made after due diligence and an understanding of the rights, responsibilities - and costs involved. He cannot enter a purchase of a business and then wish to harmonise (reduce costs) because that would make the changes solely or substantially due to the transfer itself, and therefore null and void under TUPE

One of very few exceptions would be where the changes were completely in your favour which does not appear to be the case here.

The conditions imposed by TUPE are absolute - they do not expire after a period of time. Although it will be inevitable that the TUPE protection lapses after a period of time, that is not defined and would be for a Tribunal to determine, so the 'period of pay protection' cannot realistically have a time limit.

During the recent renewed consultation the new employer has stated that they intend to move forward in implementing these changes "See above links" having strengthened there stance on the OTE reasons. It was during this conversation that they also stated that when they bid and during the due diligence process they did not receive our T/C from the old employer, therefore did not know our salary details. However having spoken to the HR dept from my old company they have informed me that this information was sent, also names and times. Do I have a right to challenge this as I feel the new employer is not being open in the negotiations and are using this as a reason as to why they are going forward.

yes, they are just trying to save money at your expense, no surprise there. As siad above, ultimately you can go to a tribunal to settle the matter but better to keep the old terms if possible. As only a few of you are affected I cant believe that they arent just playing a waiting game but no doubt someone higher up's bonus will then be affected.