Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:37 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

The club doesn't exist in law so can't enter into a contract. His contract was with OK bulls Ltd (or whatever it was called) and he has every right to refuse the TUPE transfer. bradford are FUBAR'd

Under TUPE you can refuse, but that on its own doesn't grant you a dismissal, constructive or otherwise. He would still be bound to his existing contractural conditions and could be held in violation of conditions. All TUPE is is a protection of employment conditions in a business transfer, not a change in employment conditions as required for constructive dismissal.

That said, my understanding is that they altered his conditions, I believe his salary. Which is clear contractural violation.

Either way. Providing Hull didn't make an approach, all is good from that point of view and the case against Carvell is very likely not worth perusing. I expect this to go away with a whimper.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:38 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

But simultaneously with Thackray. Do you see a pattern emerging?

Big lads all!

Re: gareth carvel : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:42 pm  

*1865* wrote:

What that means is they rejected his rejection of the new company due to terms in his contract whereby the term 'the club' referred to Bradford Bulls no matter who owned it! It's amateurish at best, they can't honestly believe that they can get away with that crap? They'll get taken to the cleaners in court.

Nope, they wouldn't. Unless their actions were discriminatory, best an employee can get is lost income. You as an employee can't even claim legal costs. Something I've written to parliament about before as I believe the system of employment tribunals is very lopsided in favour of employers with disposable capital.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:43 pm  

TUPE does allow resignation, but we'll have to wait and see.....

An employee has the right to object to the transfer and this has the effect of terminating their employment.
However, that termination would in most circumstances be taken to be a resignation by the employee.
An objection is not treated as a dismissal unless the transfer would involve a substantial and detrimental change to their working conditions.
In those circumstances it may amount to constructive unfair dismissal.
There is no right to take redundancy in this situation

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:45 pm  

Bal wrote:

Under TUPE you can refuse, but that on its own doesn't grant you a dismissal, constructive or otherwise. He would still be bound to his existing contractural conditions and could be held in violation of conditions. All TUPE is is a protection of employment conditions in a business transfer, not a change in employment conditions as required for constructive dismissal.

That said, my understanding is that they altered his conditions, I believe his salary. Which is clear contractural violation.

Either way. Providing Hull didn't make an approach, all is good from that point of view and the case against Carvell is very likely not worth perusing. I expect this to go away with a whimper.

My understanding of TUPE is that an employee can't be compelled to transfer his employment to a new employer and has the right to walk away from an employment contract. I'm pretty sure this is the fundamental principle here and why carvell feels he can walk away. I've never seen any mention of reduced salaries. I don't think anyone has mentioned dismissal, constructive or otherwise. I'm pretty sure he's just exercising his right to walk away under TUPE

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:46 pm  

ccs wrote:

TUPE does allow resignation, but we'll have to wait and see.....

You can "resign" at anytime. Your not obliged to work for somebody, but it doesn't free you from your contractural obligations unless you are dismissed or constructively dismiss yourself.

One of the key requirements for constructive dismissal is a change in employment conditions. A TUPE transfer is meant to actually protect these conditions.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:49 pm  

Bal wrote:

You can "resign" at anytime. Your not obliged to work for somebody, but it doesn't free you from your contractural obligations unless you are dismissed or constructively dismiss yourself.

One of the key requirements for constructive dismissal is a change in employment conditions. A TUPE transfer is meant to actually protect these conditions.

Under TUPE he can walk away from any contract he had with the previous employer. No one is trying to claim constructive dismissal, just that his contract with bradford is null and void

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:55 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Under TUPE he can walk away from any contract he had with the previous employer. No one is trying to claim constructive dismissal, just that his contract with bradford is null and void

It doesn't actually end the contract, or count as dismissal. However I believe you do get a very short consultation period under TUPE to refuse and walk away liability free. Not sure of the duration, but it's less than a week I think.

Bradford seem to be indicating from their statement that he didn't exercise this hence the surprise.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:58 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Under TUPE he can walk away from any contract he had with the previous employer. No one is trying to claim constructive dismissal, just that his contract with bradford is null and void

That's how I see it.

What is odd is this reference in Bradford's statement.

his playing contract will only allow him to resign if the club is guilty of serious and persistent breach of the terms and conditions of this agreement

which wouldn't apply straight after a TUPE transfer.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:01 pm  

Bal wrote:

It doesn't actually end the contract, or count as dismissal. However I believe you do get a very short consultation period under TUPE to refuse and walk away liability free. Not sure of the duration, but it's less than a week I think.

Bradford seem to be indicating from their statement that he didn't exercise this hence the surprise.

The TUPE transfer was 9 working days ago, and Bradford wrote to Carvell "last week", so one has to assume that the consultation period was very short.