Maria wrote:

The Todal wrote:
"Maria" wrote in message
...
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 months. He has been told that in law he should now
be employed by the new owner (not a brewery), but this morning
the new owner wouldn't let him in or answer the door. Can the
new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does he
have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

He doesn't have the right to clean the pub but he does have the
right to be paid his wages. If he has worked for only 6 months he
may not have any right not to be unfairly dismissed. It may depend
on whether his employment was TUPE'd to the brewery from a
previous employer.

He was told that the brewery had TUPE'd him to the new owner, but he
only worked for the brewery in the last 6 months. I have found some
sources on http://www.out-law.com/page-448 but not sure when these
rights kick in (re the 6 months). May have to phone ACAS.

What the brewery say and what the new owner says may well be very
different, he really needs to see whats in the sale contract

--

On 23 Jul, 13:11, Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

Yes, he probebly has rights, and possibly will be entitled to be
regarded as employed by the new owner under the Transfer of
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

He should contact his local Citizen's Advice Bureau and arrange an
appointment to see a specialist employment adviser.

Toom

On 23 Jul, 13:29, Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let
him in or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what he
wants.

He may kave a right to regard himself as employed by the new owner
under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

But yes, whilst a failure to continue employment under TUPE is
automatically unfair dismissal he could not claim for unfair dismissal
if employed for less than a year.

Toom

On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until *yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 *months. He has been told that in law he should now
be employed by the *new owner (not a brewery), but this morning
the new owner wouldn't let *him in or answer the door. *Can the
new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he *wants.

Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?

No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery


But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.

Toom

Toom Tabard wrote:

On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until *yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 *months. He has been told that in law he should
now be employed by the *new owner (not a brewery), but this
morning the new owner wouldn't let *him in or answer the
door. *Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes
away, or what? Does he have rights, and what should we do
next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he *wants.

Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?

No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery


But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.

Toom

Tupe only comes about if you intend to keep the existing workforce ,
there is no requirement for the new owners of a business to take on the
old workforce

On 23 Jul, 17:15, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until *yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 *months. He has been told that in law he should
now be employed by the *new owner (not a brewery), but this
morning the new owner wouldn't let *him in or answer the
door. *Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes
away, or what? Does he have rights, and what should we do
next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he *wants.

Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?

No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery

But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.

Toom

Tupe only comes about if you intend to keep the existing workforce ,
there is no requirement for the new owners of a business to take on the
old workforce- Hide quoted text -


Indeed, where did I imply otherwise? I was commenting on your very
definite statement "No , he/she never employed him thats down to the
brewery", which may well not be the case, and indeed we've now been
advised "He was told that the brewery had TUPE'd him to the new
owner", which, if it is accurate information, means the new owner
employs him and it's down to him, not the brewery.

Toom

"Plodalong" wrote in message
...
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the new
owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let him in
or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does he
have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what he
wants.

What about TUPE?

On 23 Jul, 20:41, "mert1639" wrote:
"Plodalong" wrote in message

... Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the new
owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let him in
or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does he
have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what he
wants.

What about TUPE?

We are told that "He was told that the brewery had TUPE'd him to the
new
owner". The new owner would, in these circumstaces, employ him and
should deal with him fairly. The problem is that if the new owner
simply denies him recognition/employment then he is unfairly
dismissed, but probably has no recourse since he was employed for less
than one year. Again, it would be best that he consult a CAB
employment specialist to check the position.

Toom

"Toom Tabard" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jul, 20:41, "mert1639" wrote:
"Plodalong" wrote in message

... Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged until
yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked there for 6
months. He has been told that in law he should now be employed by the
new
owner (not a brewery), but this morning the new owner wouldn't let him
in
or answer the door.
Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes away, or what? Does
he
have rights, and what should we do next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do what
he
wants.

What about TUPE?

We are told that "He was told that the brewery had TUPE'd him to the
new
owner". The new owner would, in these circumstaces, employ him and
should deal with him fairly. The problem is that if the new owner
simply denies him recognition/employment then he is unfairly
dismissed, but probably has no recourse since he was employed for less
than one year. Again, it would be best that he consult a CAB
employment specialist to check the position.

Of course. I'd missed the bit about 6 months. As you said, he could well
have been TUPE'd over and then sacked for no reason (as long as it wasn't
discrimination).
Best advice would be to get a new job. There isn't a shortage of cleaning
positions.

On 23 Jul, 18:06, Toom Tabard wrote:
On 23 Jul, 17:15, "steve robinson"
wrote:





Toom Tabard wrote:
On 23 Jul, 15:51, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Maria wrote:
Plodalong wrote:
Maria wrote:
Well not me, but my husband.
His job is cleaning a pub (not self-employed), which belonged
until *yesterday to a brewery, who employed him. He has worked
there for 6 *months. He has been told that in law he should
now be employed by the *new owner (not a brewery), but this
morning the new owner wouldn't let *him in or answer the
door. *Can the new owner just ignore him and hope he goes
away, or what? Does he have rights, and what should we do
next?

Thank you.

I dont think 6 months gives him any rights. The new owner can do
what he *wants.

Doesn't he have to officially sack him or something?

No , he/she never employed him thats down to the brewery

But where a business is sold as a going concern and continues in that
business then frequently employees have rights to continuity of
employment under TUPE - they are legally employed on the same terms by
the new owner.

In this particular case he may well have been entitled to regard
himself as employed by the new owner, but they could probably dispense
with his services without him having any comeback because of his
limited service.

Toom

Tupe only comes about if you intend to keep the existing workforce ,
there is no requirement for the new owners of a business to take on the
old workforce- Hide quoted text -

Indeed, where did I imply otherwise? I was commenting on your very
definite statement *"No , he/she never employed him thats down to the
brewery", which may well not *be the case, and indeed we've now been
advised "He was told that the brewery had TUPE'd him to the new
owner", which, if it is accurate information, means the new owner
employs him and it's down to him, not the brewery.

Toom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i.e. the very opposite of what you stated with dogmatic, and ill-
advised, certainty.

Toom