O/T Gizza Job

Discussion on LUFC and absolutely anything... welcome to the Dark Side
User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby the flying pig » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:46 am

Vampire wrote:There are Spanish customs and there is the Spanish Public Service:

Spanish public servant skipped work for a decade

Only in Spain.


...had not... logged in to the corporate network since 2012...


:salute:

good story. elements both heroic and despicable.

User avatar
Mustafaster
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:02 am
Location: PC Brigade House.

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby Mustafaster » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:09 am

Vampire wrote:There are Spanish customs and there is the Spanish Public Service:

Spanish public servant skipped work for a decade

Only in Spain.

:lol:
Brilliant. It's what I love about this country.
Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby eric olthwaite » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:33 pm

MightyWhite wrote:.


MW - am I right in thinking your thing is HR / employment? Can I ask you about a hypothetical scenario?

Someone’s been an employee of a company for over a decade. Originally started as a privately owned set up but there have been a number of takeovers / management buybacks / new takeovers over the years. Currently the company is a division of an overseas international megacorp. On each occasion AFAIK all staff have been TUPE’d across.

Now, said employee has a significant client base who are coming to the company for her in particular, not the company. As you might imagine, her contract has all manner of extremely stroppy clauses related to not contacting clients / ex-clients for a number of years after leaving. There may be a sniff of another sale / takeover on the breeze.

What I’m wondering is, at the point of takeover if it happens, this person would be able to say ‘I don’t want to be TUPE’d’ and could then at that point walk out and not be contractually constrained by the restrictions on client contact?

User avatar
Rambo the randy pig
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:24 am
Location: Makin bacon

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby Rambo the randy pig » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:37 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
MightyWhite wrote:.


MW - am I right in thinking your thing is HR / employment? Can I ask you about a hypothetical scenario?

Someone’s been an employee of a company for over a decade. Originally started as a privately owned set up but there have been a number of takeovers / management buybacks / new takeovers over the years. Currently the company is a division of an overseas international megacorp. On each occasion AFAIK all staff have been TUPE’d across.

Now, said employee has a significant client base who are coming to the company for her in particular, not the company. As you might imagine, her contract has all manner of extremely stroppy clauses related to not contacting clients / ex-clients for a number of years after leaving. There may be a sniff of another sale / takeover on the breeze.

What I’m wondering is, at the point of takeover if it happens, this person would be able to say ‘I don’t want to be TUPE’d’ and could then at that point walk out and not be contractually constrained by the restrictions on client contact?


In most case not or at the very least the balance of the test would lie in the employees favour.

It would depend on the circumstances of both the takeover and the basis of the restrictive covenants.

As always this answer is given on the basis of generalisation & could change dependent on the specifics. In other words, typical lawyers answer - probably not but don't hold me to it.

User avatar
OWETB
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:05 am
Location: Eating pig with the Prophet Mohammed

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby OWETB » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:43 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
MightyWhite wrote:.


MW - am I right in thinking your thing is HR / employment?


No.

Ask him about shit in storage that we will never be able to see.

User avatar
MightyWhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 am
Location: Notts

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby MightyWhite » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:32 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
MightyWhite wrote:.


MW - am I right in thinking your thing is HR / employment? Can I ask you about a hypothetical scenario?

Someone’s been an employee of a company for over a decade. Originally started as a privately owned set up but there have been a number of takeovers / management buybacks / new takeovers over the years. Currently the company is a division of an overseas international megacorp. On each occasion AFAIK all staff have been TUPE’d across.

Now, said employee has a significant client base who are coming to the company for her in particular, not the company. As you might imagine, her contract has all manner of extremely stroppy clauses related to not contacting clients / ex-clients for a number of years after leaving. There may be a sniff of another sale / takeover on the breeze.

What I’m wondering is, at the point of takeover if it happens, this person would be able to say ‘I don’t want to be TUPE’d’ and could then at that point walk out and not be contractually constrained by the restrictions on client contact?


Sorry, Eric, only just seen this.

She can object to the transfer, which would effectively mean that the contract would not transfer to the new ownership (presuming of course the company is bought wholesale and not simply by means of a share purchase - in which scenario it won’t be deemed to have been a change of employer and, by extension, a TUPE). She will of course be unemployed as a result of this action.

That would then suggest that any restrictive covenant would be with the old company, rather than the new, as the latter never acquired her employment rights. If the old employer is ‘out the game’ it would certainly lessen any chance of them seeking to enforce the covenant.

My knowledge of restrictive covenants isn’t the greatest as they’re mostly enforced through civil courts and my job only really deals with employment tribunal matters, but it’s well known that said civil courts are very reticent to enforce RCs unless there’s clear danger to the company’s profitability.
Keep Fighting
@lufchris - contributes to your daily bullshit quota in easy 140 charactor installments

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:43 pm

Cheers both, that's really useful.

User avatar
MightyWhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 am
Location: Notts

Re: O/T Gizza Job

Postby MightyWhite » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:55 pm

OWETB wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:
MightyWhite wrote:.


MW - am I right in thinking your thing is HR / employment?


No.

Ask him about shit in storage that we will never be able to see.


I don’t even know what this means :lol:
Keep Fighting
@lufchris - contributes to your daily bullshit quota in easy 140 charactor installments


Return to “The Square Ball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests