employers have won a local authority bid- need some advice please

[panagia]

Hi everyone

 

I am actually asking these questions on behalf of my Mum

 

She works (as a paid employee) for a registered charity dealing with child care setting (pre-schools and the such like). The Charity has just had confirmation that they have won the contract with the local authority, (they currently have the contract and have done for at least the last 14 years) This time they have won the contract that will include 4 other areas, that at the moment are covered by other agencies.

 

So My Questions are:

 

1 Can my mum be made to re-apply for her job assuming that her role doesn't change?

 

2 If she does have to re-apply and then does not get the job would she be entitled to redunancy pay.

 

3 how much of her job desciption would have to change for it to constitute a change of role

 

4 Some of her collegues have contracts that expire in March 11, But my mum has an old "on-going" contract from when she started 14 years ago, would this give her more job security?

 

5 If some of the roles between the 5 agencies cross over, how would it be decided who stayed on and who was made redundant?

 

Sorry If I have been a bit vague but at the moment these are all the details I have as the confirmation of the contract was only announced yesterday.

 

Thanks in advance to you all

[SarEl]

It is very difficult to give advice about something that hasn't happened! The details of what happened are required! So this is a broad brush...

 

1) We couldn't say. It depends on whether there are anticipated redundancies in the offing as a result of any restructure of services etc.

 

2) Yes, she should be, provided that she doesn't turn down a suitable alternative vacancy

 

3) There's no percentage set down in law

 

4) Not necesarily - it is unlawful in some circumstances to terminate a fixed term contract solely on the grounds of their expiry. So it would depend on the circumstances at the time. And anyone with a fixed term contract with 4 or more years service must be traeted as permanant.

 

5) That's up the the employer. They decide on the process, provided it conforms with the law.

 

Sorry - I know the answers are similarly vague - but theer are no satisfactory answers to braod hypothetical situations.

[meekmeek]

the authories contract does not effect your mothers contract simply because they have won a bid

 

the local area contract is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between the council and the the charity. your mothers employment is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between your mother and the charity. they are two separate things.

 

if your mother had a expiry date then there would be a few things to worry about at expiry but your mother is on a permanent contract and so your mother has less to worry about.

 

normally winning a contract like this [as it sounds like it will increase area's of work] would mean the charity will be recruiting and not making redundancies.

 

the only concern by thinking out of the box i can see is if your mother was trained purely to care for certain children but now all caring positions were to be replaced with a different set of children requiring different skill sets

 

what i mean is if your mother is trained to care for school children with mobility support needs

 

but the whole charity has shifted away from mobility support over to children with respiratory [oxygen needs] in a hospital / hospice for instance requiring medical support. then there is possibilities of alot of changes to contract or chances of redundancies if she lacks the training. but normally charities are not that nasty and would offer training

 

the real question is has the charity also retained its current providers and working locations or is the inhome-hospice-hospital [for instance] a full replacement from schools

 

sorry i guessing locations as its not clear and i suggest when children involved you dont want to go into to much risks as i know there are rules about admitting certain work details publicly

 

just reply with the basics - old work locations to continue along side new contracted locations or complete change around requiring new skill sets mother lacks

 

if old work places are retained then at most all your mother has to worry about is probably having to have a updated CRB check done which will be nothing to worry about

Edited February 9, 2011 by meekmeek

[SarEl]

I am sorry, but I have to respond to this. I generally don't respond to meekmeek at all now, but this one requires a response because it is dangerous.

 

the authories contract does not effect your mothers contract simply because they have won a bid There is absolutely no eveidence to suggest this is true. We simply don't know because it is too early to tell. Wnning further commissioned contracts may result in no change - or it may result in massive change. It does not change anything for now, but it certainly may do in the (near) future.

 

the local area contract is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between the council and the the charity. your mothers employment is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between your mother and the charity. they are two separate things. Changes to the business are never unrelated to the contract between employer and employee. The changes may not be noticeable (a good thing), or may be in your favour like new promotion prospects (a great thing) - but they may also not be in your favour . Until there are further details, which may happen quickly or over the enxt few months, you won't know.

 

if your mother had a expiry date then there would be a few things to worry about at expiry but your mother is on a permanent contract and so your mother has less to worry about. Rubbish. I have already explained that having a time limited contract does not necessarily matter at all. Making someone redundant on the basis that they have a time-limited contract only, and if they have more than 12 months service, is unfair dismissal. And if they have 4 or more years of continuous service under time limited contracts (which many third sector employees do) then they are automatically regarded in law as permanant employees. Regardless of what their contract says.

 

normally winning a contract like this [as it sounds like it will increase area's of work] would mean the charity will be recruiting and not making redundancies. All this statement demonstrates is an entire lack of informed knowledge about local authority commissioning procedures. Winning the contracts does not mean that they will be recruiting at all. It means that the employer will be inheriting staff under TUPE from those who lost the contracts - so they will be gaining staff. And given that right now, many local authorities are tendering to the lowest bidder they may be inheriting too many staff. All of which have a right to the jobs of the agency winning the contract.

 

the only concern by thinking out of the box i can see is if your mother was trained purely to care for certain children but now all caring positions were to be replaced with a different set of children requiring different skill sets No - because the "box" may contain several staff all equally qualified to care for the children the OP's mother currently cares for, and they may require fewer staff. We don't know yet.

 

what i mean is if your mother is trained to care for children with respiratory [oxygen needs] in a hospital / hospice for instance but the whole charity has shifted away from medical support over to mobility support for school children. then there is possibilities of alot of changes to contract or chances of redundancies if she lacks the training. but normally charities are not that nasty and would offer training

 

the real question is has the charity also retained its current providers and working locations or is the schools a full replacement from inhome-hospice-hospital for instance No, that isn't the real question. The real question is what funding and responsibilities (for staff - not just clients) has the employer inherited and what do they need moving forward.

 

sorry i guessing locations as its not clear and i suggest when children involved you dont want to go into to much risks as i know there are rules about admitting certain work details publicly

 

just reply with the basics - old work locations to continue along side new contracted locations or complete change around no intimate details about what or where she specifically works needed There is no need to reply to anything right now - nothing has happened!

 

As I said originally, there are no answers to situations that have not happened yet. It is entirely possible that this will have utterly no impact on your mother, but as you have obviously realised, the converse is also true. Given that commissioning is being used to further drive down costs (something which is being imposed on local authorities) then it is almost impossible that there will be no impact at all on the agency. Whether this will impact on your mother is an unknown quantity - but it certainly shouldn't be disregarded as a risk.

 

The only thing you can do is wait and see. You know where we are if it does.

[meekmeek]

again seral has mis understood what points i was making - i was going to try explaining better but instead i will just say this

the op wants lists of possiblities and things to ease their mind - any advice is better then just saying

 

wait and see whats inside the box and then come back to us - [not verbatim]

 

imagine the advice was given to a bomb disposal expert asking for training before taking on a possible suspect box - he comes to a forum seeking advice about a future possibility and the only response he gets was.

 

nothing has happened yet so dont worry just wait and see whats inside the box and then come back to us and we can help you with what you need to do - we dont deal with hypotheticals [not verbatim]

 

bang ouch no arms

 

forum reply oh dont worry now you can seek legal action

 

people come here seeking assistance about things they dont know - sometimes you do have to guess and think hypothetically to give them advice

 

they would rather be trained and prepared for any and every posibility then to just be told to go away and comeback later

 

 

its already deemed normal practice that what is said is just advice and guideance and not to be treated as a legal right to persue the advice simply by its suggestion.

 

so relax and make some hypotheticals now and again help the OP out and dont flame or knit pick, especially if wat you have read has not been put into context of a hyperthetical or guess.

Edited February 11, 2011 by meekmeek

[digsin]

Further to what SarEL has said,

 

working for a local authority i see no reason why your mum should need to reapply for her contract. TUPE is the transfere of other employee's which will be from the authority not the charity. If the Authority was taking over the charity work then your mum would be the one under TUPE conditions, but there are rules against degrading TUPE employee's conditions. I seeNO need toworry about this point.

On the other hand, it may be a case that your mum, in her role as a charity person MAY need to become some sort of supervisor for the TUPE staff. I only say this as any staff that may come under TUPE may not fully understand the charity's wishes.

 

You will nee to see if the local authority has any local conventions in place that your mum needs to know about.

 

Other than that you will need to give more details on the situation your mum is in, although i cant see any problems at the moment

[SarEl]

 

so relax and make some hypotheticals now and again help the OP out and dont flame or knit pick, especially if wat you have read has not been put into context of a hyperthetical or guess.

 

"Wat" i tell people are facts. They ask for facts, not stories about bomb disposal. "Thinkiing outside the box" is not making up entorely fantastic stories with no relevance whatsoever to the situation they are in. If any OP wants something to "ease their mind" then i would strongly suggest medication. They actually want to know what is likely to happen - and sometimes it isn't possible to tell them, and sometimes it is, and sometimes they may get a range of possible scenarios which are based on the facts. In this case there are none, so there are a million possible outcomes, from nothing to a great many changes. I certainly told nobody to go away - told them the truth. Which is something that some posters around here don't like. The fact that you did not like the advice given to you - which was, nevertheless, correct advice, is rather irrelevant. Telling somebody that everything will be ok and what has happened is a great thing and will have new opportunities for them, when that may be entirely contrary to the truth, and when it is based on a complete failure to understand the primary purpose of commissioning - which is to cuts costs - is irresponsible.

 

So I will help the OP out when they have something that they can be helped with - not with "hypertheticals" or guesses based on the fantasy of another poster whose advice is downright wrong.

[meekmeek]

sarels advice has been to many - story is unclear so cant advise

dont deal with hypotheticals

its not happened yet so cannot comment

 

well sarel uses fancy words like tupe and that lot to look good but forgets to offer actual practical advice about the wat if's so that the person is prepared for anything

 

you think bomb disposal workers learn by just opening the box and seeing what happens and then seeking advice after once they know whats inside

pfft thats a stupid and narrowminded way of giving advice

 

its better to give OP possibilities

such as like i was saying the OP does not have much to worry about - the only thing would be is if the new winning bid led to the charity changing from [hypothetically] changing from looking after kids with medical needs to kids with mobility needs

 

that is a valid point to make to the OP so sarel dont flame me again allow the OP to decide to read it or not. advice here is free and it is not legally binding and no one is held accountable so there is no need for a editor

 

the moderators will edit out foul language so leave it at that

 

you stick to your wait and see whats in pandorah box and once the snowball of disciplinarys -redundancies begins then file tribunal - heard that [not verbatim] stepping stone of thoughts on so many threads

 

and others will think of human ideas and experiences and possibilities

 

your a legal expert not a forum moderator - stop provoking trouble because you cant give a straight answer and then flame posters when they still seek answers and when others post answers where you could not

 

we are all human lets all get along and stop this stuff if you cannot give a straight answer dont answer if you just gonna reply to edit someone dont reply

 

its for the OP to decide on the information and they will seek legal support from solicitors in their area or legal aid if things happen - until then its free

 

stop mothering people thinking you know more - yes you know more about the law but not about actual employment - you dont know how to carve a hip bone out of a cow in under 40 seconds in a slaughter house you dont know KFC secret ingrediant there thousands of things about employment you do not know so dont flame others just because we are not sticking to law books - some of us give real world advise

 

so lets all get along and leave it to the op to read or ignore - stop mothering the forums as if mother knows best - in actual fact people learn more from their peers then their mothers so lets all just post our own separate pieces of advice

 

and dont reply if you just gonna quote me adding red writing

 

that being said we do respect your advice but please ease off on the harshness when you cannot give a full answer or when posters still seek advice because you could not give it

 

theres more to employment then just law

Edited February 12, 2011 by meekmeek

[Ms_J]

Meekmeek,

 

I find your replies to SarEl pretty offensive. You got lots of very valid, valuable advice on your own thread but you did not like many of the replies given to you and you were downright rude a number of times in your replies.

 

From my own personal experience, I required advice as to the actual situation that I was in and what legal rights I had. Had people replied with "hypothetical" or "thinking outside the box" suggestions then I would have found that to be pretty unhelpful and it would have confused matters.

 

I would have thought that most people who have a problem and post on a site like this want advice that is specific to their problem and advice that can set them on the right path.

 

You know yourself, that becoming involved in an employment dispute/issue of any kind can become quite distressing and can have a detrimental impact on your health and wellbeing. What would be the point in adding to that stress by giving an OP various "hypotheticals" to worry about?

 

I would say that SarEl, along with everyone else on these forums is fabulous for giving up their time to assist people who are in need of some help and advice.

 

I find this forum very interesting and I have gained so much from reading the various replies given by people.

 

As you said, there may be more to employment than just law but when it boils down to it, if you have a problem with your employment, you may just have to exercise your legal rights and it does pay to know what they are.

 

I don't think that it is constructive to use someones thread to insult other people and referring to advice given as "narrowminded" and "stupid" just because you don't agree with it.

Also, I don't think that it is useful to tell people not to reply if they are going to correct things that you have said. If people are being given wrong information, surely there is nothing wrong with correcting this as it could have the potential to be damaging.

 

I have never found anyone on this site to use "fancy" words, most people give advice based on the knowledge that they have and deliver it in a way that on the whole, is understandable to the reader.

TUPE has been mentioned in this thread as it is valid term, not a fancy word to confuse or impress!

 

I enjoy reading the posts on here but it is becoming uncomfortable, I don't really want to read insults directed at another cagger and I think it would be a shame if SarEl or anyone else got fed up with it too and decided to stop offering help on here.

It may also put off people who have stumbled upon the site in their serch for help!

[elpulpo]

Very well said, Ms J. I second that.

[Ms_J]

Thank you, Elpulpo!

[SarEl]

Thank you, Elpulpo!

 

Yes, thank you. I regret to say that this is getting tiresome. When meekmeek was posting on their own thread I did my very best to ignore what I found to be very offensive remarks at times because I genuinely wanted him or her to understand. And a lot of other people tried similarly - not just me. But meekmeek seems to have singled me out as an enemy, and it is, I admit becoming quite wearing. I have never claimed to be always right, and in employment situations there may not always be a "right" - but I think that the OP's of these threads deserve a little better than having a vendetta waged across their very genuine problems just because one person didn't like the advice they got.

[honeybee13]

And I apologise for continuing off topic when we all did our best for meekmeek on his/her threads, but our OPs don't really deserve 'hyperthetical' ramblings about thinking outside boxes, murderers and bomb disposal people, etc.

 

My best to all, HB

[Ms_J]

I am in agreement, SarEl. It is very unfair to the OP's and also to yourself.

 

Both yourself and the other people who post on this forum are doing so by giving up your own time to offer genuine, valuable, useful and valid advice and nobody should be on the receiving end of offensive posts just because someone has taken a dislike to something/someone.

 

I do hope that you continue to contribute to this site, I am sure that I am not the only one who enjoys reading your posts and also learns from them!