
I have no option but to hand in my notice as my employer is being acquired by a previous employer
I had a very unhappy time in that place as did many others because there is a very bad working culture in the acquiring company.
We are being told that there will be no redundancies – voluntary or compulsory.
I have no option but to hand in my notice. Would I be entitled to constructive dismissal in these circumstances?
READ MORE
The reader's case, as described, is an 'unusual and unlucky' situation for an employee to find themselves in, according to experts in employment law and human resources, though they advise not to make any hasty decisions and to use processes available to them.
Anne O'Connell
, principal of employment law firm AOC Solicitors, believes the reader might be 'jumping the gun' in this case, saying the acquiring company could be under new management, and the takeover might not necessarily mean both are merging.
'They might just work alongside each other and there might be no changes in the personnel, so I think they should see it out and see what happens,' she says, advising not to 'assume anything'.
The reader in this case cannot claim constructive dismissal based on their previous experience with the acquiring company, she says, as it was a separate employment and period.
'Unless the new owner actually does something to them in the present, and doesn't remedy it, and they go through the internal procedures first, there's no constructive dismissal,' she says.
'They haven't had dealings with this company in this current role; they can't say their current role is made impossible because something has happened in a different employment, in a different role, in a different location before,' she says.
O'Connell advises staying put and seeing how the transfer transpires, and if the employee finds themselves in the same scenario as they did prior, they could lodge a grievance.
After the internal grievance process has been exhausted, and if the problem remains unrectified, there could be an avenue for constructive dismissal.
'Only at that point, if the conduct is serious enough, should they look at constructive dismissal, but only if they can objectively say: 'I can't continue in this job,'' she says.
Should someone choose to pursue this route, the internal grievance process must be used first, and the employer must be given an opportunity to mend the problem.
Will DoorDash takeover of Deliveroo mean better pay and conditions for gig economy workers?
Listen |
28:33
Earlier this week, US meal delivery group DoorDash agreed a deal to take over its British rival Deliveroo, which has a big presence in Ireland.The deal is valued at £2.9 billion and will pit the merged group in competition with other online delivery platforms such as Just Eat and Uber Eats.Callum Cant is an author and senior lecturer from the University of Essex and also worked for Deliveroo while he was in college.He joined host Ciarán Hancock on the line to discuss the merger and what it might mean for Deliveroo's battalion of gig economy workers and for retailers using the online ordering platform.Also on this week's Inside Business, the Department of Finance's annual progress report on the Irish economy, a document that informs budgetary strategy and is filed with the European Commission.This week it brought news of a slowdown in growth, reduced job creation and a significant fall in corporation tax receipts.Eoin Burke-Kennedy covered the story for The Irish Times and explained the headline numbers in the report and what impact Trump's tariffs will have on Irish economic growth this year.Produced by John Casey with JJ Vernon on sound.
Constructive dismissal is a 'very hard case to bring home for an employee,' she says, in which the employee must prove they had no choice but to resign due to the actions of their employer.
'It's a very last resort, it's a very hard case to win,' O'Connell says.
Michelle Halloran
, independent HR consultant and workplace investigator, of Halloran HR Resolutions, agrees that circumstances may have improved within the reader's former company.
'Maybe the management has changed – often, people have problems with a particular line manager, there's always a possibility a few years on that it might be a better environment,' she says.
However, a period of consultation with employees prior to transfer, which is required, might provide an opportunity for the reader to raise concerns with their current employer, ahead of the acquisition.
This would be an chance to raise prior experience in working under the acquiring company, outlining the fact that they do not want to work for them and why.
However, documentation such as previous written complaints or grievances made while working under the acquiring company are vital.
Should the reader have such documentation, their current employer might approach the acquiring company on their behalf, and both might work towards a solution.
While the incoming employer will be the one to make the decision, they may opt to allow for a redundancy package in this case, particularly if there are records to back up the claim.
'If they never raised anything and they just quit, and they're very unlucky and go to work for someone else and they end up being transferred back to the original employer, if there's no record, they don't really have a leg to stand on,' she says.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Karl Brophy buys stake in Piers Morgan's growing media group
Karl Brophy , a former journalist who sold his communications business Red Flag Consulting for an estimated €45 million earlier this year, has bought a multimillion euro stake in British broadcaster Piers Morgan's media business. Mr Brophy, a former Daily Mirror reporter who worked with its one-time editor Mr Morgan, is understood to have invested a significant seven-figure sum to buy a minority stake in the British man's Wake Up Productions. Another minority stake in the business is held by Martin Cruddace, a former racing executive and long-time associate of Mr Morgan's who also previously sat on the board of Red Flag. In March, Wake Up bought control of the Piers Morgan Uncensored news and opinion show from Rupert Murdoch's Talk TV, an online venture that broadcasts on YouTube but was previously a linear television channel. READ MORE [ Red Flag Consulting sold with expected €33m payout to founder Karl Brophy Opens in new window ] As part of that deal, Wake Up entered a four-year agreement with Mr Murdoch's News UK to share advertising revenue generated on YouTube by Piers Morgan Uncensored. The popular show presented by Mr Morgan last week passed four million subscribers on the Google-owned platform, where it broadcasts roughly six episodes each week. Recent guests included influencer Jake Paul; Eric Trump, son of US president Donald Trump; and former hip-hop star Kanye West, who now styles himself as Ye. Mr Morgan plans to expand the Uncensored brand in the online broadcasting market, using YouTube as its distribution platform. He told The Irish Times he may try to entice other YouTube stars with big subscriber bases to join the fold under the umbrella of the Uncensored brand. Or, he said, he could launch a stable of Uncensored shows covering different areas, similar to how Gary Lineker's Goalhanger stable of podcasts grew brands such as The Rest is Politics, The Rest is History, The Rest is Football and so on. Mr Morgan said all the content Wake Up produces is aimed at the burgeoning US media market – he has worked in the US on and off for two decades. 'We're in the top three in the world [with Piers Morgan Uncensored] on YouTube for news and opinion. No mean feat in three years,' Mr Morgan said. It is understood Mr Brophy will not join the board of Wake Up, but will contribute to strategy. Mr Morgan and Mr Cruddace were said to be keen to bring on board an investor who could help devise plans to grow the business. Mr Brophy, a former executive at Independent News & Media, founded Red Flag in 2013 with former INM chief Gavin O'Reilly as its chair and swiftly built up the business. Mr Brophy's wife Deirdre Grant runs the Irish division of Red Flag, which also has offices in London, Washington, Brussels and Cape Town. Mr Brophy personally held a 75 per cent stake in the business worth about €33 million when it was sold to US-based Ankura Consulting Group in February.


Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Appeal for prevention of more A5 road deaths following court order quashing upgrade
A man whose father was killed in a crash on the A5 in Northern Ireland has warned more people will lose their lives on the road because of a court ruling that has quashed its upgrade. On Monday Mr Justice McAlinden at the Belfast High Court said he was aware his ruling would bring 'fresh anguish' to bereaved families, but the proposed scheme breached elements of the Climate Change Act 2022. 'My appeal is to the minister, infrastructure officials in the department, to get this [upgrade] over the line, get the evidence that the judge has said is required delivered at pace and get moving on this,' Stephen Kelly, whose father, Terry, was killed on the road in 1995, said afterwards. 'Pull everybody together first thing and get working, because in the time it's going to take between now and whenever this project comes forward again, more people are going to lose their lives, and that is completely unacceptable.' READ MORE Mr Kelly, who is chief executive of Manufacturing NI , also said the A5 was a 'critically vital piece of economic infrastructure' for the west, and was needed 'from an economic, a political and a familial point of view'. In a statement following Monday's ruling, the North's minister for infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, said it was a 'disappointing day' and re-emphasised her commitment to the A5 upgrade. She saidshe would 'take time to carefully consider the judgment in full, including any implications for the scheme, and the department's next steps'. The upgrade of the A5, which runs from Derry to the Border at Aughnacloy, Co Tyrone and connects the northwest to Dublin, was first announced in 2007 but has been mired in delays and legal challenges. In that time more than 50 people have lost their lives on the road. The £1.2 billion (€1.4 billion) scheme was approved in October but judicial review proceedings were brought against the Department for Infrastructure by nine applicants including residents, farmers and landowners. The judge acknowledged it was 'likely that delays in the progression of this scheme will coincide with the occurrence of further loss of life and serious injury on the existing road' but he said the decision to proceed 'must be taken in accordance with the law'. Mr Kelly's father Terry, 45, was on his way home to Derry from his construction job in Omagh when he died in a collision 'on that bad corner in Bready', Co Tyrone. 'My father was just a normal working man in the construction industry, he left to go to work early in the morning of 31st August 1995 and he never returned home.' His son was 24. 'I'll never forget,' Mr Kelly said. 'This young police officer had to come to my family home, where I answered the door. 'He was visibly upset and stressed, and I was taken away in the police car to go down to Altnagelvin [Hospital] and identify his body. That's an experience that will always live with you. 'That corner has been slightly improved since then but there's been next to no improvement on that road in the 30 years since he lost his life.' Niall McKenna, chairman of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign group, also warned it was 'inevitable ... that delay will cause deaths'. He said the judge's decision had caused more 'anguish' to bereaved families who could not understand why, 'when there's a scheme there, and the vast majority of people want it, the money's there to build it, why can it not go ahead?' 'What is wrong with our legal system? What is the dysfunctionality of our system, a lot of our systems, that cannot deliver things that are for huge societal benefit?' he said. Additional reporting – PA.


Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Eir seeks £67m in damages from rival BT relating to dispute over NI public sector contract
Irish telecoms giant Eir was kept 'unlawfully in the dark' by its rival BT when tendering for the biggest public sector contract in Northern Ireland, the High Court in London has heard. On the opening day of the hearing, in which Dublin-based Eir is seeking damages from BT of £67 million (€78 million), the background to the long-running dispute was outlined, with Eir's barrister arguing that BT had a 'wealth' of secret information that led to it winning the £400 million contract in 2018. 'Eir went from being one of Northern Ireland's largest public sector players to being marginalised completely from the market ... and BT effectively stepping into their shoes in what was a role reversal,' Eir's barrister, Robert O'Donoghue, KC, said on Thursday. The tender process for the lucrative nine-year Northern Ireland Public Sector Shared Network (NIPSSN) contract ran between April 2016 and March 2018. READ MORE Schools, Stormont departments, health trusts and councils were among 150 organisations who would avail of the service. In 2020, Ofcom, the UK telecoms regulator, fined BT £6.3 million for unlawful anticompetitive practices during the procurement process. During his opening submission, Mr O'Donoghue referenced the Ofcom ruling and 'turbocharged' legal obligations it had previously placed on BT to ensure a level playing field for its competitors. 'Interestingly and prophetically BT objected to this additional obligation at the time,' he told the court. Eir, which is controlled by the French billionaire Xavier Niel, claims that Openreach (the network arm of BT) discriminated against it by failing to provide it with key information on costs and BT's fibre-to-the-premises on-demand product (FOD). BT and Eir were the only two bidders for the contract. For BT to portray its bid team as 'mavericks' in using FOD was 'self-serving nonsense', claimed Mr O'Donoghue, as the product 'is just another type of fibre that has been around many years'. 'The issue was that BT made it difficult to get a handle on costs ... Eir were kept unlawfully in the dark while BT had access to secret information on costs ... and the notion that the BT bid team had uniquely stumbled across some Holy Grail or secret source of FOD is obviously untrue.' The case is listed to run for four weeks. Some 14 witnesses, a 'considerable quantity' of expert material and complex technical background will be detailed, the court heard. 'It must be like staring at the foothills of the Matterhorn at the start of a climb,' Mr O'Donoghue told Judge Adam Johnson. 'But we submit that the points of this case are not actually that complicated, and to a material extent, not actually in dispute. 'The long and the short of it is, that everything matters, is admitted by BT. The starting point is that BT admitted the infringements to Ofcom.' The case continues.