Fixed Term Vs Permanent Contract Rights

Seosamh

Registered User
Messages
2
After 3.5 years of rolling contracts with a company, my job, along with a number of others in the same department, is being outsourced. The facts, as I know them are as follows:

My contracts were as follows starting in early November 2011:
- Third Party company, contracting me to my current employer: 6 months
- Company contract: 1 year
- Company contract: 6 months
- Company contract: 1 year
- Company contract: 6 months (current)

My current contract ends on 3rd May. My role, along with others, is being outsourced. The handover process for this outsourcing is being carried out on a phased basis and is due for completion around October/November of this year.

My "company" contracts have always entitled me to every benefit that a permanent employee receives (annual leave, pay for Public Holidays, sick leave, pension contribution, etc.) EXCEPT for the pay-for-performance component of an annual review.

In my yearly review I have always achieved a score which equates to: "Performance consistently meets role requirements and expectations relative to agreed objectives and role profile."
My employer has informed me that they are not going to renew my contract and believe they have no obligation to:

- Extend my contract.
- Ensure I obtain a similar position with the outsourcing company.
- Provide me with any redundancy (-type) payment.
- Provide me with any assistance whatsoever.

There is a full-time, permanent employee performing a near-identical role to myself. They have been given the choice of either staying in the company, where a role will be found for them, or transitioning to the outsourcing company. They may have been offered other options as well.

My question is: is the company within their rights to do this, or is there de facto discrimination at play here?

Thank you for your kind attention.
 
Hi Seosamh, I presume you are not a member of a trades union. This is not a critism and probably any negotiating rights you might have had are less. Also, I presume you are working for a non Irish company. Not a criticism either; I'm just trying to get the playing field into perspective.
You are under a rolling contract and when your contract expires so does your work there.
 
Thanks for your response Leper.

(a) I'm not a member of a trade union, but I am in contact with some reps about this matter. They may support me as a matter of principle.

(b) No, my employer is a NOT a non Irish company; it s a household-name Irish semi-state with a track record of letting staff go just prior to four years fulltime employment.

(c) When my contract expires, my work will be carried out by staff from an external company who are taking over responsibility for day-to-day IT in my company. They are currently sitting beside me obtaining all the necessary information from myself, and others, to achieve this.

So, my point is: my work still needs doing, it just suits the company to have someone else do it, and not to renew my contract after my being there for three years, full-time. Also, full-time staff are being accommodate, whereas I am not.

Am I being unfairly treated?
 
Under any outsourcing agreement, staff rights are covered under legislation called TUPE, the Transfer of Undertakings of permanent employees. Employers are perfectly entitled to outsource their work if it makes business sense. Over the course of my own career, I have been TUPE'ed twice and it was fine. I also have TUPE'd staff into my own organization so I can see it from both sides

The question therefore is are you covered under TUPE based on your length of service? Whilst your employer obviously thinks you are not I think you may have a strong case. I have seen cases where agency staff who had worked for a company for many years were deemed to be covered under the legislation
 
Thanks for your response Leper.

(a) I'm not a member of a trade union, but I am in contact with some reps about this matter. They may support me as a matter of principle.

(b) No, my employer is a NOT a non Irish company; it s a household-name Irish semi-state with a track record of letting staff go just prior to four years fulltime employment.

(c) When my contract expires, my work will be carried out by staff from an external company who are taking over responsibility for day-to-day IT in my company. They are currently sitting beside me obtaining all the necessary information from myself, and others, to achieve this.

So, my point is: my work still needs doing, it just suits the company to have someone else do it, and not to renew my contract after my being there for three years, full-time. Also, full-time staff are being accommodate, whereas I am not.

Am I being unfairly treated?

Sorry to say this Seosamh, you will be finishing with this semi-state company. The union giving you lip service probably will not be effective either, but it makes them look good to other non members and to their membership. I hear what you are saying, but outsourcing is the order of the day for your company. In your future career I hope you do better than the "under four year rule."
 
Sorry to say this Seosamh, you will be finishing with this semi-state company. The union giving you lip service probably will not be effective either, but it makes them look good to other non members and to their membership. I hear what you are saying, but outsourcing is the order of the day for your company. In your future career I hope you do better than the "under four year rule."
I agree.
 
There was a v v recent case involving a contractor from formerly EBS (?) rolling over into contracts with AIB, and then AIB terminating the contract. I read about it the first day of Court but didn't see any follow-up. I also know that larger American companies tend to hire contractors for a maximum 10 or 11 months before benching them for 3 months and then re-hiring them, if those people were still available.

Obviously they were protecting themselves against future litigation, but note the short timeframes - you're well past those in your company.
 
I know where I work they don't want contractors accumulating 2 years continuous service, and a number of other clear distinctions must be made between full time and contract staff. The fact that you were paid sick leave, pension contributions etc. would help to make a case for you to be considered a permanent staff member. One for the EAT perhaps.
 
Leper.

Find a good Employment Solicitor.
You are with a semi-state and from your comments they too have fallen into the (part-time contract) scene. It smells of unfairness.
If semi-states can get away with this , then private co,s will be emboldened.
Long term this (short-termism), on what are long term jobs, will self defeat, and is corrosive to society.
 
Leper.

Find a good Employment Solicitor.
You are with a semi-state and from your comments they too have fallen into the (part-time contract) scene. It smells of unfairness.
If semi-states can get away with this , then private co,s will be emboldened.
Long term this (short-termism), on what are long term jobs, will self defeat, and is corrosive to society.

Sorry Gerry, you have the advantage of me here. I don't know what point you're making. The original poster has a contract and the contract is due to expire. He can employ The Equalizer and still will suffer the same result.
 
Back
Top