Too big for the daily rant thread!!! Very upset!

[evolution]

So a few of you know where I work for a day job, and lets just keep that part out of it.
My work is part of quite a large company, and we were/are? a corporate store.

The last week or so at work has been full of uncertainty and frustration. Basically long story cut short being a corporate store we have a set of rules that we have to follow and a set of standards that are told to us. Yet as we have found out our higher ups clearly have one rule for us and others for them.

What has happened that has really got up my goat is that we have supposedly just been bought out by a new couple to be a franchise. Now that is all well and good, we are only a small store of 7 people.

This has supposedly been in the pipeline for 18 months. Yet the first people to tell us were the new people that are going to be the franchise owners.
What we were told is that out of all of us 2-3 people will be getting made redundant and not offered a position after the take over, none of us are sure who it is as yet.

Now that is fair enough, I respect the fact that only x amount of people can work in a shop and all that jazz. Now all this is supposed to happen at the start of the new financial year.

Now I don't have a problem with that, But my problem is that up until only a couple of days ago All the people from head office were denying that anyone knew what was happening and that nothing is/was confirmed.

NOT ONE person from head office has had the balls to come up and tell us what the *(&()^&)*P is going on, What will happen, how people are going to be looked after and when all this is happening.
How do they expect us to work there knowing that they couldn't give a rats about us.

Why are the new owners who haven't finished the sign up process, telling us that people are going to be made redundant. That it isn't up to them and its our head office's problem, yet No one from head office has even come down to speak to us?


Even the store manager wasn't told until yesterday. This has really REALLY peeved me off!!!
I am fairly certain that my job is safe, as there really isn't anyone that they could find to do my job.
Hence why I struggle to get time off. Even if I do get made redundant and not offered a position, I will get by, I still have my defence pay and can work from home a few days week. We would survive.

But the others at my work aren't lucky enough to be in the same position, One of the guys there is still having to go to Melbourne for his wifes chemo. Yet he doesn't even know if in 6 weeks he will have a job.

So yeah, long story short I don't know the new owners and don't have a problem with them. But clearly our head office needs some lessons in maturity, honesty, respect and integrity!!


anyway enough of a rant,

Cheers
Evo

[evolution]

apart from the fact that I obviously need to check my grammer before I post, Let me just reiterate that this is about my day job, nothing to do with campers. If I could work with the campers full time I would lol, but that is a way off yet. 

Cheers
Evo

[scarps]

Hey evo, I've dealt with this alot over the years on both sides of the event. There's no doubt from what you've described, there's some pretty poor management of the situation from both groups.
In many instances, I can advise that a local franchise owner can be a better situation to work in, than a corporate group, (but not always).
PM also sent

[evolution]

Hey evo, I've dealt with this alot over the years on both sides of the event. There's no doubt from what you've described, there's some pretty poor management of the situation from both groups.
In many instances, I can advise that a local franchise owner can be a better situation to work in, than a corporate group, (but not always).
PM also sent

Completely agree mate, as I said I don't have a problem with it being bought or the possibility of working for a franchise. Just the lack of consideration and respect from our head office.

Cheers
Evo

[achjimmy]

Evo good luck with it all. Tbh from what I know of some corporates it's likely they have no idea wtf is going on and the new owners are being upfront?  I have had to lay people off for both redundancy and performance and it's the pits,  you are governed by ridiculous employment laws that make you do some things that are not in anybodies interest IMO. When doing  this or employing people I always think its best to make a decision and be swift about informing them. But as above sometimes stupid laws force your hand! Creating uncertainty over such a long period is just dumb and really the new franchisees are not acting in anybodies favour unless there plan is to get some people to leave!

[Mik01]

Whilst it's poor form, it's likely the parties were bound by confidentiality. Could be a number of reasons specific to your industry (and no I don't know where you work), or concern over people leaving.

staff goodwill and common courtesy should have seen the parties agree that some form of communication to the staff was necessary beforehand. At least a HR function should have been engaged.
I was subject to sale of the business I was in over a year ago. Staff were all made aware in advance, and terms of the sale was that pay and conditions remained the same etc. whilst some people were made redundant, and we knew it was possible we could go, at least we knew what was going on and could feel comfortable to a certain degree (depending on what role you had, how expendable you thought you were etc.)

I agree this is very poor, but likely there were legal reasons behind this, possibly?

[drenno]

Hi Evo,
Sorry to hear about your situation, at least the incoming owners have some common decency. Given the existing management's poor form, perhaps it may be prudent for you and other members of staff to collectively contact Fair Work Australia or similar, to ensure you all are aware of all your entitlements so that there can be no "mishaps" or "oversights". I feel certain that the outgoing owners and management staff will NOT be the victims of such "honest mistakes"

regards
Drenno

[Malcolm Tugless]

it's likely the parties were bound by confidentiality.

Depending on the size of the "head office", theres a possibility that only a selected few were privy to any negotiations regarding the change. Contractual privacy agreements are common practice, as is keeping a lid on prospective changes until they are actually going to happen.

The personal side of it is another matter altogether, and without knowing the structure of your company I can't really make a judgement. But yeah maybe a visit from senior management and the new franchisee would have been better form.

Regardless of how the message was delivered, it was always going to be a bitter pill to swallow.

All the best to you and your colleagues.

[D4D]

Sorry to hear your situation Evo and I hope it works out for the best. There's a whole bunch of theories on how to do this properly and there are pros and cons to each theory. At least the new owners were upfront and you have some idea of what is going on, gives you an indication of how they will operate in the future.

[Marschy]

I wouldn't have thought that employees can be sold along with other assets? The corporation must offer alternative employment in other parts of the company or redundancy. The new employer is not obliged to provide redundancy.

[paceman]

I wouldn't have thought that employees can be sold along with other assets? The corporation must offer alternative employment in other parts of the company or redundancy. The new employer is not obliged to provide redundancy.

the corp doesn't always have to offer redundancy/relocation, unless it is part of an agreement, as far as i know...

good luck with it, evo...  hope it works out OK.  one door closes and another one opens, maybe...

[Marschy]

The franchisee doesn't have a workplace agreement with the employees, the corporation does, that's my point

[Barry G]

I am no fan of the SDA, but from what I understand they do a good job at getting members all their entitlements.
Very much doubt that your employer would've got away with this in a unionised shop.

[Bunyip]

Hi Evo,

Your situation sucks, having beenmade redundant from an organisation that did a very similar thing.

Thinking of you and your collegues, hopefully a decent outcome in the end for all.

Bunyip

[achjimmy]

The franchisee doesn't have a workplace agreement with the employees, the corporation does, that's my point

Nobody knows the terms of the agreements and yes you can sell a business with the current employees, ofcourse you are not selling those employees but all there entitlements transfer with the new owners, LSL etc. if the employee does not wish to work for the new owners they can quit if before handover or after and are entitled to everything as per there contract from either the original owner or new pending on timing.

[Marschy]

Nobody knows the terms of the agreements and yes you can sell a business with the current employees, ofcourse you are not selling those employees but all there entitlements transfer with the new owners, LSL etc. if the employee does not wish to work for the new owners they can quit if before handover or after and are entitled to everything as per there contract from either the original owner or new pending on timing.

The transfer of employees is not a given if the existing corporation is an ongoing concern.

[achjimmy]

The transfer of employees is not a given if the existing corporation is an ongoing concern.

But it depends on the contract the employees have signed. I can bet being a corporation they will have that covered.

[Marschy]

But it depends on the contract the employees have signed. I can bet being a corporation they will have that covered.

Wrong, it depends on 'who' they signed their contract with, not other parties who the corporation can spin off assets to.

[Black Diamond]

Yep pretty Tuff situation Evo and i hope it works out best for you. From previous experience Franchises can be very nasty also. Make sure you get some legal advice and someone to investigate it properly if you havent already 

[achjimmy]

Wrong, it depends on 'who' they signed their contract with, not other parties who the corporation can spin off assets to.

Marschy yes you are correct but I can't see a corporation especially one that has a history in franchises not having  this covered, but it would be something again depending on the terms of the original contract and that could be run through FWA, they are employee friendly. But really even FWA might baulk at it if nine of the original employees rights or entitlements are being changed and ust only ownership.

Tbh I would be suprised if it's the franchisee that is laying off the people. Most business ownership changes I have seen the new owners negotiate with the seller to  clear the entitlements on employees that are not required beforehand.

[Marschy]

Marschy yes you are correct but I can't see a corporation especially one that has a history in franchises not having  this covered, but it would be something again depending on the terms of the original contract and that could be run through FWA, they are employee friendly. But really even FWA might baulk at it if nine of the original employees rights or entitlements are being changed and ust only ownership.

Tbh I would be suprised if it's the franchisee that is laying off the people. Most business ownership changes I have seen the new owners negotiate with the seller to  clear the entitlements on employees that are not required beforehand.

There is nothing to cover, you sign a contract with one employer, not a gazillion potential employers.

[dazzler]

The other side, the blunt side, is they are running a business.

Whilst happy engaged employees is always a good thing if you were told months ago that there would be new owners and a restructure (or sackings) would you still be there or looking elsewhere?

I would be looking elsewhere.  And so probably would you I think as you are no paper weight within the organisation.  Does management REALLY need to tell staff what they are doing?  In those workplaces where I have been and uncertainty is in the air they perform very poorly until the changes come in.

Maybe another way of looking at it?  (not meant personally   ) 

[achjimmy]

There is nothing to cover, you sign a contract with one employer, not a gazillion potential employers.

As suspected already covered by FWA as a "transferable instrument."


What is a ‘transferable instrument’?

Where there has been a transfer of business, certain workplace instruments (transferable instruments) that covered employees of the old employer continue to cover those employees employed by the new employer.

Each of the following is a transferable instrument:

an agreement (an enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission, a collective agreement, a preserved individual or collective state agreement, an Australian Workplace Agreement, an Individual Transitional Employment Agreement, a certified agreement made before 27 March 2006, and an old industrial relations agreement)
a workplace determination
an award
a notional agreement preserving a state award (NAPSA)
a named employer award (a modern award that commenced on 1 January 2010 that expressly covers one or more named employers)
preserved redundancy provisions (in certain circumstances, if the transfer occurred before 31 December 2009)
individual flexibility arrangements
guarantee of annual earnings.
The transferable instrument will cover a transferring employee while they are performing transferring work until it is terminated, or until a new workplace instrument commences which can cover the transferring employees An enterprise agreement can cover employees under any previous enterprise agreement (after its nominal expiry date) or any other collective or certified agreement, NAPSA or award. From 1 January 2010, a modern award can cover employees under awards or NAPSAs.

Any new employees that you engage will be covered under the applicable modern award or another enterprise agreement. If there is no modern award or enterprise agreement that covers the new staff, then the transferable instrument may also apply to the new employees.

The Fair Work Commission is permitted to make certain orders relating to the application of transferable instruments - that is, in particular, whether a transferable instrument will or will not apply to the new employer, or that an enterprise agreement (or other collective agreement) or modern award that applied to the new employer applies to the transferring employees.




http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Resources/fact-sheets/employer-obligations/Pages/transfer-of-business-fact-sheet

[Marschy]

The transferable instrument will cover a transferring employee while they are performing transferring work until it is terminated, or until a new workplace instrument commences which can cover the transferring employees

One workplace agreement ends, another commences, it is not the same workplace agreement. This is also more applicable when the entire asset is sold, not a part of an asset and the existing entity is an ongoing concern. Your existing employer is required to deal with issues like redundancy if it is offered, they are only obliged to offer paying out your entitlements, not the new owner of the spun off asset. You are not obliged to agree with any changes to your existing work place agreement, at which point you have to reach some middle ground with your existing employer, at which point you will be bent over and shafted.

[achjimmy]

But it doesn't give them a right to redundancy ?