Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

[Worriedman]

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I am in a senior role in an organisation which is about to merge with another creating a number of duplicated roles. I have been told to expect redundancies. I haven't been issued with redundancy notice yet, but I am aware that people are being selected for those senior roles in advance of the merger happening which is due in a couple of months.

My boss said to me a couple of weeks ago that the other firm, the dominant partner (its really a takeover) had stated that the individual they have in post in the role equivalent to mine "will definitely be staying". (He has since denied ever saying that, presumably having consulted with an employment lawyer.)

A colleague of mine, in a similar senior role (FD), has already been told that he won't be offered that role in the new firm, it will go to their existing FD. He has been told he would be offered a more junior position as Financial Controller.

Were I in a redundancy situation now, I guess this might be construable as unfair selection. But I'm not, yet. Anyone out there with knowledge of how this process works in practice and what is/isn't a fair in the run up to a merger?

Thanks in advance.

[miliitant]

Re: Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

When do the expect the merger to take place

are you in a consultation period at the moment

whatever happens they have to honour your current terns and conditions of employment including salary and holiday entitlement

[basa48]

Re: Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

When do the expect the merger to take place

are you in a consultation period at the moment

whatever happens they have to honour your current terns and conditions of employment including salary and holiday entitlement

Yes, and length of continuous service for notice and redundancy payment calculations.

I believe that, just like any employer, they can make anyone redundant at any time if their role is no longer required (note it is the post that is redundant, not the person). But dependant upon length of service (which is continuous across both employers when TUPEd over) they have to pay statutory redundancy pay.

They have to maintain your T&Cs exactly as if you were still employed by your previous employer, but can change them after 90 days.

[miliitant]

Re: Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

hi basa48

your comment

but can change them after 90 days.

where may i ask does that come from

my employment law training told me that you have to allow at least 18 months to harmonise the two contracts, not 90 days

as i remember 90 days is for redundancy consultation if you have more than 20 employees at one establishment

has the law changed ?

[basa48]

Re: Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

hi basa48

your comment

but can change them after 90 days.

where may i ask does that come from

my employment law training told me that you have to allow at least 18 months to harmonise the two contracts, not 90 days

as i remember 90 days is for redundancy consultation if you have more than 20 employees at one establishment

has the law changed ?

No, you are absolutely correct, I was confusing the consultation period with the harmonisation period.

My bad !

[Worriedman]

Re: Hi there - Merger, redndancy, TUPE, confused!

Hi merger expected to take place at the beginning of September.

No consultation process has begun yet. I am aware that the "post-merger" senior management structure is being pre-determined, largely on the preferences of the other firm. I am told now that someone has realised this could give cause for tribunal claims to be brought, and therefore that the jobs will be advertised for parties from both firms to apply. In essence I believe there to be an unfair process of selection taking place behind the scenes and that this advertising process is to create an impression of fairness. My confusion is where I stand in terms of the legal position - the selection will be taking place before the merger, with no-one having been put at risk of redundancy, and my expectation is that those they "don't want" for the most senior roles will be either made redundant on the basis of Economic, Technical or Organisational reasons, or in some cases (I suspect I am one of them) offered a secondary role. I guess I just have to see how this unfolds and take legal advice as things develop!

Thanks to you and to all other respondents.