My mother in law works part-time for a supermarket in England, an has worked there for over 2 years. In July there was a store meeting where everyone was advised that they will be requiring people to offer more availability for the times/days they can work due to business requirements, and that redundancies were on the cards. On the way out of the meeting they were given generic letters for them to fill in with their new availability.

Mother in law extended her hours of availability even though she didn't want to and she cannot commit to much more (she cares for my 2 year old a few days a week whilst i am at work). A few weeks later in August there were some redundancies in the store, seemingly for those who didn't offer the flexibility/availability required. Mother in law's new availability was accepted and her shifts she has been given has been based on that new availability since.

Last week she was hand delivered a letter inviting her to a meeting with her manager tomorrow to discuss further availability that the store needs their staff to commit to, and that if this is not achieved then the outcome for the staff who cannot fit in with their requirements will be a new contract offered under the new hours the store demand, and failure to sign the contract would mean they are dismissed.

I will be going to the meeting with her tomorrow as support. A few points i wonder if anyone could advise me on?:

• I have advised her to give some further offer of availability to show willing, and to draw a line and no futher. But can they ask for further offers of availability despite seemingly accepting what she offered when looking at initial redundancies?
  
• Can they make redundancies in the first step, and then in phase 2 (i.e. now) threaten dismall with no redundancy? In my mind there's nothing different to when asking people to change their hours to suit the business in July and doing it again a second time now.
  
• I have suggested she writes a flexible working request as she is unavailble 3 days a week due to caring for my child and hand it to her manager in the meeting tomorrow. Is this worth her doing or likely to cause problems?
  
• Basically, if she refuses to say she's available for all of the store opening times/dates and they dismiss her for this (as in give her a new contract which she doesn't accept) is this legal and does she have any avenues of recourse?
  

Any advice appreciated.

Just a quick update. I'm sat in the staff room at the supermarket as I'm not allowed into the meeting as not an employee or trade union member. To be honest, this was partially expected despite last week the deputy manager (store manager was on holiday) confirming to mother in law that a family member would be allowed to accompany her.

I've given her a list of points/questions she can raise, waiting to see the outcome, hence me sitting in the staff room.

Hi jacktheband

I suspect that it's a large organisation with multiple units?

How long has she been working there?

Is she in the Union?

This sounds very much like the employees are being bullied into extending their working hours.

There might be business needs, but in one hand they are making employees redundant whilst extending the hours of other employees.

They could just employ new employees to cover the hours they

want covered. They may have various motives in carrying out such actions. But what they will have is very unhappy employees.

The other thing is they keep repeating the actions.

Even though the Terms & Conditions of employment may allow management to carry out those actions, it's goes against the governments strategy of greater flexability in the work place.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/workplacehealth/Pages/bullyingatwork.aspx

Yes, is a large organisation with multiple units. She's been working there a few years, approx 4 or 5 I think. She is not in the union.

Still sitting in the staff room twiddling my thumbs.

Let's see what she comes back with. I'm really, really surprised that a big organisation is acting in this way. You need to find out if this is being conducted in all stores or just this one.

Yes, is a large organisation with multiple units. She's been working there a few years, approx 4 or 5 I think. She is not in the union.

 

Still sitting in the staff room twiddling my thumbs.

jacktheband, this sounds very worrying can you update the thread please

The best the company can hope for is to threaten people with organisational changes causing redundancy. They dont really want this, they want to create new work patterns and avoid employing more people so if everyone said no and accepted redundancy they would have to shut up shop whilst they took on and trained a new work force. For this reason if MiL really doesnt want to work different or more hours she should make it clear and I bet they will say well you can carry on as you are because there are exceptional circumstances.

A friend of maine had this and he told his manager to give the hours to someone who needed the money as he didnt. he carried on as before when everyone else had to work boxing day, overnight on christmas eve etc.

Sorry for not updating the thread yesterday. Here is the outcome of the meeting, as mother in law came out and chatted to me straight after. Probably easier to bullet point this:

• She has submitted her revised availability - the manager said thanks, he doesn't reckon this will make the grade but he will pass onto HR and will hear back soon
  
• He apologised for deputy manager agreeing for me to attend, he will take that error up with the deputy manager
  
• When asked what is being put into place to support those with childcare requirements: "Nothing at all."
  
• When asked what difference a Flexible Working Request would have on this process: "You cannot submit one, you do not have children under 17". (i have obviously explained to her that the manager is completely wrong as obviously not aware of the changes in law in July this year for which anyone can submit a FWR)
  
• She had a Flexible Working Request letter all written in her pocket ready to hand over. Due to the answer from the last point she did not hand it over. I have advised her to read the government website to reassure her that what i say is true (and the manager is wrong), and suggest that she speaks to the manager again with a print out from the website and submit the request.
  
• When asked what length of time any new availability would be set in stone for (as when providing her previous increased availability in July/Aug which was accepted, it is only 2 months later when they've come back asking for further availability increases): "There is no length of time. If we accept your new hours, there's no guarentee that we won't be asking for further flexibility very soon afterwards".
  
• When asked what the difference is with this current phase compared to phase 1 where redundancy was used for a few individuals (i.e. why redundancy in Aug, but simply dismissal now): mother in law said that they simply said this was two separate phases (i don't think mother in law either asked question properly or understood answer - so she was a bit vague on this one)
  

So, that's it so far. She'll hear in due course regarding whether her new availability she has offered is accepted or not. I have advised her to start applying for as many other jobs as possible as even if she has her hours accepted, the store seems to be on a downwards trajectory and it staying on there doesn't seem to be wise in the long term. It just worries me that if it doesn't work out and she gets dismissed she will have no severance pay (when others in her situation 2 months ago did) and that the whole situation doesn't seem to be balanced/fair.

It's a form of bullying, you could also add blackmail to it, if she doesn't agree to further hours then there will be a consequence for her. The manager seems to have the wrong information. There are quite a few things your MIL could do.

Just to be clear, i don't think they are asking her to work extra hours (she is contracted for 16 hours) but more of a case they want to her to have greater availability. Currently, she does not work Sun, Mon and Tue as looks after my son. They want her to say she can work those days, so when they publish the shifts some/all of her 16 hours might be on those days. Not sure if this makes a difference, but just thought i'd mention.

Doesn't make a difference, she's workng those specific hours and days for a reason because they fit around her other commitments.

Just to be clear, i don't think they are asking her to work extra hours (she is contracted for 16 hours) but more of a case they want to her to have greater availability. Currently, she does not work Sun, Mon and Tue as looks after my son. They want her to say she can work those days, so when they publish the shifts some/all of her 16 hours might be on those days. Not sure if this makes a difference, but just thought i'd mention.

OK a large supermarket.

Im guessing Sainsburys or Morrisons. It sounds more like Morrisons to be honest as that practice was commonplace in Safeway, Naming the company is a good idea as people will be familar with the policies and procedures they have.

Once we know the policies they have for "Moving people round the business" it can then be worked out if they have followed their own procedures.

If they have not it would then be worth a grievance being lodged officially. As she has 4-5 years service if they do this wrong it could end up a tribunal worthy case.

HOWEVER

***JOIN A UNION***

They can represent at all levels INCLUDING TRIBUNAL and may even pay tribunal costs. It may be too late for this issue but next time having a union rep will make a difference