|
|
Post by jollypotter88 on Jul 13, 2012 15:02:24 GMT
Not looking good for them now eh!
Green's purchase of their contracts is not valid, according to an employment law expert.
The club's administrators, Duff and Phelps, revealed earlier this week that Green's £5.5million purchase of Rangers' assets included a £2.75m payment to purchase the contracts and registrations of the players.
Duff and Phelps, appointed by the Court of Session on February 14, broke down all the "asset realisations" and it was shown that Green's consortium paid for the club's employees to transfer to his company under TUPE regulations, which protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another.
However, on the advice of their union, PFA Scotland, numerous players have rejected the opportunity to transfer their contracts from Rangers to Green's Sevco consortium.
Green rejects the claim that the players are free agents and the former Sheffield United chief executive sent letters to clubs across the UK warning them that the players who objected to the switch to his new company were in breach of contract.
International clearance for the transfers of Steve Davis, Kyle Lafferty, Jamie Ness, Steven Whittaker and Steven Naismith has been put on hold as Green continues to dispute the players' status.
Naismith has moved to Everton, Whittaker has signed for Norwich and Ness has joined Stoke.
Northern Irish duo Davis and Lafferty are at Southampton and Swiss side Sion respectively, while goalkeeper Allan McGregor is in talks with Turkish club Besiktas.
Despite Green taking a firm stance, Adrian Hoggarth, the head of employment law at Prolegal believes the deal struck may have been outside of the law.
"It is not legally possible for Rangers and Charles Green to buy and sell players as part of a business transfer," he said.
"Whether or not the players transferred in this case appears to depend on two things.
"Firstly, were they assigned to the business of the football club when it transferred? This is a matter of law and this has nothing to do with any money that may have changed hands.
"Secondly, were the players aware of the transfer at the time it took place? Case law suggests that if you know about a transfer before it happens and don't object to it, you lose the right to object once the business transfers. If not, you don't.
"To suggest otherwise would take away the right of an employee to object to being transferred, which is a right enshrined in law."
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 13, 2012 15:11:47 GMT
Under TUPE the employer has to give the employee a certain amount of days notice of transfer, the employee can decide if he wants to stay with the existing company or transfer to the new one.
The existing company was liquidated so legally the players were not owned by anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Jul 13, 2012 15:30:36 GMT
They do not have to go anyway and are free agents. The law is to protect the employee not the owner of the business.
|
|
|
|
Post by jollypotter88 on Jul 13, 2012 15:45:30 GMT
Agree on both counts really. They are trying to get something but I reckon Newco are aware they don't have chance in hell of winning the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 13, 2012 16:13:33 GMT
I wonder if the Newco can now claim £2.75 million from the administrators - as that is what they appear to have paid for contracts which could not(apparently) be legally enforced?
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 13, 2012 16:16:11 GMT
TUPE is all about protecting the employee and their rights.
As Northwich said Employees can avoid being transferred to the new organisation by objecting to the transfer. If they do object to the transfer then their employment will automatically end on the date of the transfer. Both the outgoing provider (Rangers) and the incoming provider (NEWCO) should consult the affected employees over any measures propoesed under TUPE and under the TUPE regs of 2006 both parties are jointly and severally liable for any claims for breach of information and consultation provisions in relation to the transferring employees. Therefore if it were to go to an Empliyment Tribunal you would have thought that NEWCO haven't got a leg to stand on because either the players objected to the transfer or they were not informed of what was being proposed with the relevant information.
(I think that's how it works anyway)
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jul 13, 2012 18:27:37 GMT
I was TUPE'd (and made redundant by it) 3 years ago so did read up on this. Partly because I was elected as a staff representative and partly because I'm the sort of nerdy anorak that does.
Before a Transfer of Undertakings takes place both employers (previous and new) must consult with employees affected.
There is no set period for this (unless the employees are going to be made redundant, in which case normal statutory redundancy notice applies).
The law just says that "sufficient" notice and consultation must be given.
Time must be allowed for representatives to be elected, and there should be a proper consultation between the two employers and the employees.
Once this has been done, and the employees have been given the date of the transfer, their contracts will be assigned to the new employerunless they object in writing.
So, if the players were properly informed of the TUPE and did NOT object, then Green has a case.
However, if he just phoned them up and said "we're TUPE-ing you tomorrow", then the players would have a strong case to take to a tribunal that the transfer was not properly done.
If they weren't told, then Green has no leg to stand on.
I think.
|
|
