Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
wandering snail

Harecastle Tunnel employees to be made redundant.

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, dmr said:

I think CRT have maybe already accepted this and said that the "friends" scheme was more about getting people involved than raising money, not itself a bad idea, though likely just a way of putting a good spin on a bad result.

 

................Dave

 

And, that was a failure as well :

 

Based on their very low target for 'friends' which they then reduced by 50% due to the initial low take-up they should have had 100,000 'friends' by 2018 if they were on target (their revised 'lower' target'. 

They have recently provided two different sets of figures - the higher of which is in the annual report at 24,100.

 

Both the signing up of 'friends' and 'voluntary giving' has been an unmitigated disaster.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Load of tosh.

When I spoke to C&RT I was told that there was an employment embargo in place at the time and the tunnel team were supplied via an agency.  Therefore they are not employees of C&RT, can not be sacked or made redundant by them. 

It seems regardless whether it is Brexit, Covid 19 or HS2 the media and those that report it are pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think at the time it was speculation, but now the Tunnel staff have apparently been given 'Notice'

Have they? NBW says so

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No doubt this why we now have to book for the tunnel, as there's going to be some very cross people if the volunteers don't turn up. There's already been one occasion when the fan didn't get turned on, and if you have volunteers manning the tug?

The whole rationale for booking being due to Covid is obvious nonsense. Hey ho.

But the tunnel staff don't man the tug, they have to call someone in to do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

image.png.87a2a839c60fbdb0fb706e7bfbf8f7e2.png

 

T'would be interesting to hear "today's" statement from the staff who have (they say) been told they are being replaced by volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Load of tosh.

When I spoke to C&RT I was told that there was an employment embargo in place at the time and the tunnel team were supplied via an agency.  Therefore they are not employees of C&RT, can not be sacked or made redundant by them. 

It seems regardless whether it is Brexit, Covid 19 or HS2 the media and those that report it are pointless.

Yes, I believe that's exactly how its done, CRT recruit the staff, tell them they are CRT staff but that the actual payroll is handled by an agency, the staff believe they are employed by CRT and everything supports this, but when CRT want to get rid of them they "find" they are agency staff, they have been seriously misled, maybe somebody who knows more might be along a little later.

 

..................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

T'would be interesting to hear "today's" statement from the staff who have (they say) been told they are being replaced by volunteers.

Agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dmr said:

Yes, I believe that's exactly how its done, CRT recruit the staff, tell them they are CRT staff but that the actual payroll is handled by an agency, the staff believe they are employed by CRT and everything supports this, but when CRT want to get rid of them they "find" they are agency staff, they have been seriously misled, maybe somebody who knows more might be along a little later.

 

..................Dave

An employer doesn't transfer their legal obligations to their employees by out sourcing payroll.

 

Outsourcing payroll is common, even in the public sector. But the employer remains the NHS, the local authority, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

Load of tosh.

When I spoke to C&RT I was told that there was an employment embargo in place at the time and the tunnel team were supplied via an agency.  Therefore they are not employees of C&RT, can not be sacked or made redundant by them. 

It seems regardless whether it is Brexit, Covid 19 or HS2 the media and those that report it are pointless.

The tunnel person I spoke to in July said he had previously been a CRT employee, but had recently been payed off and re-employed by an agency to do the same job. He was pissed off because he hadn’t been paid for several weeks.

 

So it does rather smack of a smokescreen to get rid of the paid staff and replace with volunteers. Pretty despicable, and having seen what poor supervision and standardisation the volocky programme suffers from, I don’t relish it.

  • Horror 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The tunnel person I spoke to in July said he had previously been a CRT employee, but had recently been payed off and re-employed by an agency to do the same job. He was pissed off because he hadn’t been paid for several weeks.

 

So it does rather smack of a smokescreen to get rid of the paid staff and replace with volunteers. Pretty despicable, and having seen what poor supervision and standardisation the volocky programme suffers from, I don’t relish it.

A good employment lawyer would likely rip CRT's position to shreds if that has been their position.

 

You technically cannot make somebody redundant if the job they do still exists. Its the job/role that is redundant not the person. Somebody who finds themselves dismissed in this way potentially has a claim for the dismissal being deemed unfair and would be entitled to redress if they win. Redress can include being re engaged doing the same job on the same terms and conditions.

 

Of course large organisations like CRT can call on expensive lawyers to fight their case and scare off the poor sod who no has less or no income to pay for a lawyer to fight theirs. They will probsbly argue at this point the role is notbthe same one. It would be up to s good lawyer to show it substantially was.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt ref earlier posts - being made redundant is classed as being dismissed or in common parlance being 'sacked'. It just another reason for being dismissed.

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

An employer doesn't transfer their legal obligations to their employees by out sourcing payroll.

 

Outsourcing payroll is common, even in the public sector. But the employer remains the NHS, the local authority, etc etc.

Yes, but how does the employee know if he is working for for the NHS (or CRT) or the agency? 

 

I thought I knew who I was working for (a University)  but its only when things started to go a bit wrong that I read my letter of appointment in great detail, plus all the other letters documenting changes to the terms of my employment (plus a couple of dead dodgy ones that I refused to sign).

 

................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmr said:

Yes, but how does the employee know if he is working for for the NHS (or CRT) or the agency? 

 

I thought I knew who I was working for (a University)  but its only when things started to go a bit wrong that I read my letter of appointment in great detail, plus all the other letters documenting changes to the terms of my employment (plus a couple of dead dodgy ones that I refused to sign).

 

................Dave

You have answered your own question.

 

Appointment letter, employment contract etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A good employment lawyer would likely rip CRT's position to shreds if that has been their position.

 

You technically cannot make somebody redundant if the job they do still exists. Its the job/role that is redundant not the person. Somebody who finds themselves dismissed in this way potentially has a claim for the dismissal being deemed unfair and would be entitled to redress if they win. Redress can include being re engaged doing the same job on the same terms and conditions.

 

Of course large organisations like CRT can call on expensive lawyers to fight their case and scare off the poor sod who no has less or no income to pay for a lawyer to fight theirs.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt ref earlier posts - being made redundant is classed as being dismissed or in common parlance being 'sacked'. It just another reason for being dismissed.

 

 

Agreed, although having just been involved in an unfair dismissal case that took 2.5 years to complete, and cost £33k up front in legal fees, the reality is not quite as easy as saying they can claim for unfair dismissal. In practice you have to have a lot of mental strength and financial resource.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

 In practice you have to have a lot of mental strength and financial resource.

Or dare I say it a good union.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A good employment lawyer would likely rip CRT's position to shreds if that has been their position.

 

You technically cannot make somebody redundant if the job they do still exists. Its the job/role that is redundant not the person. Somebody who finds themselves dismissed in this way potentially has a claim for the dismissal being deemed unfair and would be entitled to redress if they win. Redress can include being re engaged doing the same job on the same terms and conditions.

 

Of course large organisations like CRT can call on expensive lawyers to fight their case and scare off the poor sod who no has less or no income to pay for a lawyer to fight theirs.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt ref earlier posts - being made redundant is classed as being dismissed or in common parlance being 'sacked'. It just another reason for being dismissed.

 

 

You are correct, its the job itself, not the person doing it, that becomes redundant, but the unions (if they even exist here) are a lot less powerful than they used to be so CRT can just break the law or find a loophole, or maybe the government changed the law when we were not paying attention???

 

.................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Agreed, although having just been involved in an unfair dismissal case that took 2.5 years to complete, and cost £33k up front in legal fees, the reality is not quite as easy as saying they can claim for unfair dismissal. In practice you have to have a lot of mental strength and financial resource.

Totally agree. That is what the likes of crt, nhs etc etc rely on, as i think I said.

 

👍

1 minute ago, dmr said:

You are correct, its the job itself, not the person doing it, that becomes redundant, but the unions (if they even exist here) are a lot less powerful than they used to be so CRT can just break the law or find a loophole, or maybe the government changed the law when we were not paying attention???

 

.................Dave

A combination I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was likely going to be made redundant but managed to negotiate early retirement instead, so they employed a new (slightly younger) replacement for me, I expect nowadays they would have found a volunteer 😀

 

.................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dmr said:

You are correct, its the job itself, not the person doing it, that becomes redundant, but the unions (if they even exist here) are a lot less powerful than they used to be so CRT can just break the law or find a loophole, or maybe the government changed the law when we were not paying attention???

 

.................Dave

The union if it is half decent uses its funds and takes the matter to court.   The one I belong to does, particularly over dodgy employment/dismissal.   Nothing to do with power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Would this be by any chance because C&RT was paying the fund raisers more than they were actually bringing in ?

 

Figures up to a couple of years ago (20128) which are carefully hidden in the annual accounts but are there to be found :

 

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

 

Allan Albert has said "I've just crunched the figures and the cumulative loss for 'fundraising' over the first six years of the Trust is £5.5m"

 

 

 

Point of order - CRT is a charity, so it doesn't make a profit or a loss - it would be a surplus or a deficit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Point of order - CRT is a charity, so it doesn't make a profit or a loss - it would be a surplus or a deficit.

 

It is important that people do not think of C&RT as a 'Charity' in the normally accepted sense, they are in fact a Limited a company established in England and Wales, for the charitable purposes set out in its Articles of Association.

 

OBJECTS AND POWERS

 

2. Objects

The Trust’s objects are:

 

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:

2.1.1 for navigation;

2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and

2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

 

2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;

 

2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;

 

2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

 

2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;

 

2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:

2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and 

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and

 

2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways; provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

 

 

Screenshot (357).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A charity is simply a company that does not have shareholders and does not pay a dividend to those shareholders, any "profit" must go back into itself, it does not have to do "charitable work" or give anything away to the needy. Most Universities are now very big and ruthless businesses but they are also charities.

 

...............Dave

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dmr said:

A charity is simply a company that does not have shareholders and does not pay a dividend to those shareholders, any "profit" must go back into itself, it does not have to do "charitable work" or give anything away to the needy. Most Universities are now very big and ruthless businesses but they are also charities.

There are plenty of companies which satisfy that definition but are not charities.  To be a charity a company must also solely meet one of more of 13 purposes set out in the Charities Act, and be 'for the public benefit'.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is important that people do not think of C&RT as a 'Charity' in the normally accepted sense,...

What is the 'normally accepted sense' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cheese said:

What is the 'normally accepted sense' ?

 

Repeatedly some on the forum say that C&RT is not a charity because, 

they don't help the poor

they don't send food overseas

they don't save Donkey's

etc etc etc

 

The oft held perception of a charity is that it must 'give to the poor' and this is (probably) reinforced by the Oxford Dictionary definitions :

 

charity
noun
  1.  
    an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
    "the charity provides practical help for homeless people"
     
  2. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
    "the care of the poor must not be left to private charity"

 

C&RT is a limited company with Charitable purposes which are detailed in its Articles of Association (which I listed in post #34) but by many, "preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit" is not seen as a charitable activity.

 

Ask the "man on the Clapham omnibus" for examples of what he thinks a charity does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dmr said:

Yes, but how does the employee know if he is working for for the NHS (or CRT) or the agency?

 

10 hours ago, dmr said:

I read my letter of appointment in great detail, plus all the other letters documenting changes to the terms of my employment

As you did you read your letter/contract of appointment. That will say who your employer is. Also check that they are a legal entity. Many large organisations trade on a headline brand, but have many subsidiaries using similar names. e.g. Your company is called Mega Corp you think you work for Mega Corp, but the actual name of the company is Mega Corp Holdings plc. and you don't work for them, you work for Mega Corp (UK 1999) Ltd.

 

If you started working for one company and ended up working for another, then either you have signed a new contract voluntarily, or have been TUPE'd across. Either way you should know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.