to be fuming at an ex member of staff

[turbo1]

I run a newly started up commercial cleaning company. I lost one of my contracts due to my poor handling of this cleaner who was an absolute nightmare. She was rude, knocked off early and made up lies about the other cleaner. I finished the contract there a couple of weeks back and she now works at the premises under the new cleaning company who have won the deal. It is standard procedure under the Transfer of Undertakings Paid Employment 2006 regulations that when management changes her job is protected.
When my staff get paid, which is fortnightly, I email them their pay slips. the only person who I could not do this to was Rosa as she cannot use a computer. Instead I have always gone out of my way, driven down to the premises and handed them over to her. I texted her yesterday to say I would bob in next week with her pay slips as I had accidentally left some cleaning equipment on site. She called up and started screaming at me "you are no longer the fucking manager so you not coming to the place, you will fucking post this to my home address". I told her company policy is that we only post pay slips on receipt of a stamped addressed envelope. She then put her husband on the phone who started to threaten me. At this point I told them I was cutting the call and any further abusive or threatening calls would be dealt with by the police.
I am really pissed off now. I started this business a few months back and as of yet cannot afford to pay myself minimum wage. My husband and I are living of fresh air and are spending today ebaying anything in our house that has any value-which is not much. I lost money-admittedly to my inexperience in managing someone so disruptive-and she keeps her paid job. I wish I had fired her when I was her boss, but I did not have reasonable grounds to take her down the disciplinary route-all I gave her was one official warning. I wanted to sack her but she does have rights and I did not want to be done for unfair dismissal.
I did not sleep last night and am bloody livid. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

OP says the woman had been TUPEd across so presumably did have employment rights.

But Kayano's right, the OP's reaction on this thread has been very OTT.

I thought nowadays you had to work somewhere for 2 years before you had those sort of rights, up till 2 years you can be let go with no reason?

perhaps you need to look at your contract and add in probation periods etc

Edam - I thought the OP said the woman was TUPE'd to the new job? But may have misunderstood.

Either way I would love to hear rosa's take on this

hang on if she was transered from the contract the OP took over then she MIGHT have been there for years...
in which case the previous managers didn't fire her.. over at least a year maybe 2 of service, and the present one hasn't fired her, so that does imply that it may have been a personal thing between the OP and this woman??

All I know is I wouldn't like to work for the OP lol.

And in answer to your question I do not have a business but I talk to small business owners every single day as part of my job.

If I did start a business you can bet it would be a lot more professional than yours sounds. Name changes/ petty withholding of payslips etc would have NO place in any business of mine.

Hth

I also agree with Kayano.

Also on this point:

"I did not have enough grounds to give her the sack. Employment law gives the worker tons of rights and unless there is gross misconduct you have to take things down an official disciplinary procedure. "

Actually, that isn't true is the employee has been employed for less than a year (or two years if employed from this April). Unfair dismissal protections doesn't kick in until those points, so employees have relatively few employemtn protections outside a few specific areas (like not being sacked for disability or pregnancy-related reasons).

euro - does the two year thing only apply to people employed from April? That's interesting - I've been in my job just over a year and assumed it would be another before I got protection (not that I'm anticipating the sack, I hope!).

Edam - definitely only for those employed since April this year. You will be protected

Ah, that's interesting. And members of my team who were in post before April also get protection after one year, not six months? (As I say, I'm not anticipating the sack, just curious!)

Yes, it was one year for ages. And then changed to two for people employed from April 2012 onwards.

Thanks eurochick, that's handy to know.

"I finished the contract there a couple of weeks back and she now works at the premises under the new cleaning company who have won the deal. It is standard procedure under the Transfer of Undertakings Paid Employment 2006 regulations that when management changes her job is protected."

Can anyone make sense of this for me please?

So, OP employed a cleaner for a maximum of 4 months, and OP had a contract with a company. OP lost the contract. That does not mean that the cleaner lost her job. Cleaner is employed by the OP is she not?

Surely if the cleaner wanted to carry on at that firm, she would have to then apply for a job with the new company and be hired by them?

squeakytoy, the regulations she mentions (also known as 'TUPE') can work to transfer someone's employment when a contract 'changes hands'. So presumably Rosa was spending most of her time on this contract; she became employed by OP when OP won the contract (as apparently she was TUPE transferred in to the OP's employment as well as out) and when OP lost the contract, along with the contract, the new provider got Rosa. Rosa doesn't really have a choice - nor does OP, or the new provider.

Rosa doesn't really have a choice - nor does OP, or the new provider.

Rosa does have a choice - she can choose to leave if she wishes. It's the two employers that are bound by TUPE.

Thanks DesertGirl.

I thought I understood TUPE, I have worked in employment/payroll for years, but been out of it now for a couple of years. However my husbands company (eg XXX) has maintenance/cleaning contracts with various companies and if his boss loses the contract, then there is no work for my husband and the rest of the staff on that contract. They work for XXX company, and are employees of XXX.

So I assume the previous rules on TUPE must have changed in some way because that was never the way it worked when I was involved.

I worked for a large multi-national, and if we bought/took over another company, then the employees of that company had rights under TUPE to remain in their jobs. I can understand that. I just cant get my head round how this applies to the cleaner in the OP.

squeaky, they did change a few years ago; now if something is outsourced the people who work providing that service to the extent that they are identifiably part of that 'business' are protected.

Sally, sorry obviously wasn't clear what I was trying to say. She can choose to leave and reapply to her original employer - just as she could choose to leave the day before or the day after the transfer - but she can't choose whether the transfer regulation applies or not.