cycle 2 work eligibiliy questions. Any lawyers in the house

johnbhoy

RIght this is a question over the elegibility of the cycle2work scheme.

I work for a large Insurance company (lets call it ABC insurance for the sake of protecting the innocent ) and i have been told i am not eligble for this scheme as i do not have an ABC Insurance employment contract. I have worked for the company for 10 years back when it was another insurance company (lets call that XYZ Insurance), before ABC insurance bought us over.

So what ABC did when they bought us over several years ago was offered us an ABC contract or allowed us to keep the terms we had on our existing XYZ employment contracts. I opted to stay with XYZ contract but pretty much everything else is the same. IE i still work for ABC insurance. Permanent member of staff. With the company for 10 years, do the same job as everyone else. etc , etc. :?:

Now what they have done is advertised the cycle to work scheme as one of the benefits of the ABC contract but you have to have an ABC contract to get it. SO as i have an XYZ contract of employment, they say i am not entitled to this. I think this is wrong, as i understand that they cannot pick and choose who they offer the scheme to.

Its also my understanding that its a government back initiative so its not a scheme that ABC themselves have invented or arranged so they are not right to with hold this from me. Espeically if they are already offering it to other staff members who sit beside me. Would i be right or wrong in this assumption ?? I am currently contesting this at the moment. But would appreciate any input or thoughts anyone may have on this.

Halfords are the nominated company that the cycle2work agreement is with.

Thanks for your time.

ris

i'm no lawyer, but i think uner a technicality they may be able to do this.

i assume that as you still have an xyz contract the xyz company still exists (has own offices, payroll, etc all that sort of thing). as such xyz sets its own company policies etc.

abc has joined the c2w scheme, but in principle you still work for xyz so cannot take it up. that abc owns xyz is sort of irrelevent under law i think. if you have an abc contract with xyz terms then you would qualify as your employment is with abc.

morally it's pants but legally i think they might be safe. the miserable sods. could xyz be persuaded to join the scheme?

if i am shown to be mr wrong from wrong street then i apologise, but that is why i draw stuff for a living and not lawyering!

johnbhoy

Well see thats the problem. THeoretically XYZ dont really exist or rather the brand name does exist but XYZ also have other finacial interests so they sold off their insurance arm to ABC. THe other parts of XYZ are completely seperate from us. We have nothing to do with them and they have nothing to do with us. All our payroll , benefits, contracts etc are actually with ABC and not XYZ. But its not an actual 100% ABC contract.But i am 100% an ABC employee and its just the branding of XYZ that remains. So ABC is really just our header company.

People looking from the oustide in stilll think they are insured with XYZ but in reality they are not. Its is 100% pants to say the least.

Littigator

I am a lawyer but a property one so have feck all idea about employment law...however...I'm sure equal terms of employment would apply so that each individual in the same role as any other employed by the same company must be offered the same terms of employment.

Having said that I would assume that an HR department of the size of yours would be staffed adequately enough to know what they can and can't do.

Although...it never ceases to amaze me how thick headed and wrong even large organisations can be.

Have you had a chat with the citizens advice bureau?

xio

I'm not a lawyer, but have looked into the c2w scheme and as I understand it, they have to offer it to ALL employees.

See sections 1 and 4 below:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/c ... 732?page=1

Might be worth showing them that.

johnbhoy

Magic. that exactly what i was looking for. I read this in the wiggle terms and conditions and thought it would be the case but its good that i can see it in the official one. Will be printing that one off.

cheers

fossyant

Shouldn't make any difference as your company have to accept your previous terms as part of the take-over - called TUPE - Transfer of Undertakings of Prior Employment. I've worked in many companies where a number of T&C's operate because of 'take-overs'.

You could actually sue them by not letting you take up the scheme if others do. You are still an employee - just one or two points on your contract may be different.

the_hundredth_idiot

I'm not convinced.

"The Cycle to Work scheme is made available generally to employees of the employer concerned and not confined to directors or offered to them on more favourable terms."

From what you've said, you've got a different employer (XYZ rather than ABC), albeit within the same group of companies. You actually stated that you kept the terms from your existing XYZ employment so I don't see how TUPE can be an issue. TUPE protects existing terms and conditions if your employment contract is transferred - yours hasn't been transferred and you are talking about new terms rather than keeping existing ones.

Is there any problem in you signing up to an ABC contract? Would you lose any benefits?

Might be worth hassling your HR department - they might give in for an easy life - but I can't see there is any legal reason why they have to. I would hazard a guess that they want people to move on to the ABC contracts so are trying to provide a carrot to transfer. (Caveat: I'm not an employment lawyer, but I do work in an HR related profession and lots of transaction experience so familiar with TUPE.)

alfablue

I don't think you have a different employer, XYZ doesn't exist as an employer, just a brand. What they have done is to take over your employment but given you the right to retain the conditions applicable to your xyz contract. If they had said your xyz terms would be frozen (so no pay rises etc) then you would have had an informed choice, but my guess is that changes to pay and benefits are being applied, just this one is being witheld to coerce you to sign an ABC contract. It stinks. What does your trade union think?

lost_in_thought

Having done a TUPE myself, or tried to (current market in my industry = rubbish) (commercial property, by the way), I'm not sure.

As it wasn't an existing benefit at the time of the takeover, under TUPE alone ABC might be able to weasel out of it.

Which company is on your payslip? Business cards? Employment contract being with ABC rather than XYZ, as you say above, it seems like you are actually an ABC employee...

Their argument seems to be a little flawed...

I'd contact the citizens advice bureau, or talk to the DFT themselves.

the_hundredth_idiot

Ah, sorry - just read johnbhoy's second post saying he has got an ABC contract just on XYZ terms. That does cover the TUPE point, though - on transfer to ABC he was given the same terms as he had before the transfer which is (broadly) what TUPE requires. That is, it covers existing terms not future terms.

I can't see any reason for ABC not to offer john the same Bike to Work deal as those on ABC contracts except pettiness and/or trying to persuade him to transfer to an ABC contract (assuming switching is still an option). Are there any advantages to staying on an XYZ contract?

Juju_uk_68

At the risk of being petty,

There is actually an ABC Insurance, who's offices are in Croydon. They opened about 18 months ago, so any references to ABC Insurance, managed by ex Directline/Churchill directors, with start up capital from Liverpool victoria. So please do not read into this topic that ABC Isurance *is* ABC Insurance.

BTW - it sounds like you might be an old Churchill or Direct Line employee who didn't accept a new RBS Insurance contract? If so, have you not still got the flexible benefits? Do you not have the option to simply go to the intranet and alter your benefits?

I know as an RBS (ex Directline) employee, the scheme is so easy to action, just logging onto the intranet web site and altering your benefits, I cant see how you would be blocked from the site if you had the old flexible benefits package of DL staff.

RufusA

From an HMRC perspective - a little scarier than the DFT, the wording is very clear:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21664.htm

If an employer lends or hires cycles or cyclists’ safety equipment to employees the benefit of this is exempt from tax on employment income if the following conditions are satisfied:

•the cycles or equipment are available generally to all employees of the employer

Be warned, the terms of the loan don't have to be equitable, but for the tax relief to be available ALL employees must have the option of a loaned bicycle.

Rufus.

Agent57

Alert! Thread necromancy!

I didn't realise it was an ancient thread until I saw LiT's avatar. Almost 5 years old; gotta be some kind of record.