Radio Clyde

That appears to be the reason for the action though Mitre-the PFA are claiming that Green hasn't provided information, or sufficient information for the players to make an informed judgement on whether they should TUPE or not. TUPE or not TUPE seems to have been the question....

That appears to be the reason for the action though Mitre-the PFA are claiming that Green hasn't provided information, or sufficient information for the players to make an informed judgement on whether they should TUPE or not. TUPE or not TUPE seems to have been the question....
====

that being the case then surely they should have rejected tupe BEFORE the transfer?

Again, I think they are claiming they did not receive sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision whether to TUPE or not, thus they are claiming constructive dismissal.

My POV,

I dont think that they can claim constructive dismissal for not having enough info. They might be able to show 'failure to consult' but that is a different issue.

Remember, there is a required amount of info that needs to be given over on the TUPE. If Green gave this, then the players can bump their gums all they like, but they got what they needed.

Apologies-although it's kind of splitting hairs. I'm applying the not enough info as the failure to consult. All I'm saying is that I believe that is the basis of their complaint. I've not said they are correct, just qualifying their claim. We don't know if Green complied with this, so as much as they are on to plums if he did, they would also have a valid claim if he didn't.

My POV,

Much of the debate will come down to 'measures' and if there were any.

Measures are material changes to the contractual terms. Usually things like change of shift, work location etc.

If there were none, then the 'consultation' can be done by the inbound company at the point of transfer to the representatives.

The consultation would consist of them saying 'there are no measures'.

Change of division, financial or sporting embargoes, limiting ability to earn bonus-such as inability to play in Europe-that kind of thing?? I think that the PFA are asking about material changes that are applicable to footballers.

Change of Division, financial and sporting embargoes would not count as measures.

Bonus's you might have a case, but its unlikely.

The PFA can bump their gums all they like about special cases for footballers, but in a court, they will be treated just like a plummer or postman. We are all governed by the same TUPE laws.

Mitre-I'm not saying they are right-only pointing out why they feel they have a case. You are pre judging it without knowing the merits or any background.