Jump to content


Change of work T&C's


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2267 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

First time poster here so sorry if this is posted in the wrong place.

I am urgently after some advice for myself and other work colleagues.

 

We work for in a workshop which comes under a Logistics which has gone through certain changes over the last 6 months.

We have all come out of a meeting as the changes are now being applied to us.

 

We are being told our T&C's are being changed and we are being put onto flexible hours.

This is due to it being quiet early in the month compared to the end.

 

This will be done by "banking hours" for future use

ie the end of the month and a maximum of 30 hours to be banked per person.

 

Banking hours will be made by not working some days and the hours being saved until needed and used in small amounts on top of normal shift.

 

They can then give us 5 days notice at the end of the month as to when the banked hours will be asked for back.

It has been suggested that during this time we may be asked to work 11 hour shifts to cope with the workload as an example.

 

Finally we were told that if were not happy with this decision after consultations then we were giving our notice in for that month.

 

Now I have worked at the company for over 18 years on a 9-5:30 , Monday to Friday.

I have a wife who works part time and this will cause issues for me.

 

Is there anything I can do or is the company right to do this?

 

Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's complicated.

 

In general employers cannot force employees to accept a change of this sort but should consult employees to get their agreement. Which is what is happening here.

 

But if you refuse to agree your employer might dismiss all staff who don't accept the change and offer to re-employ them on the new contract of employment. That might have worse conditions for employees in areas other than the flexible working. That also sounds to be what the employer has in mind here, which is why they are talking about giving notice.

 

Whether that would be legal in your case will depend on the exact circumstances, employment contract wordings, etc so you need specialist advice. Are you in a union? If you are they should be able to advise you.

 

There's some more general information on the Citizens Advice website

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/basic-rights-and-contracts/changes-to-employment-contracts-overview/

Link to post
Share on other sites

A contract of employment like all contracts is a two way matter.

They can't impose changes to the contractual hours without following the correct procedure.

So first thing you need to check is the wording in your contract about your working hours.

If the contract says 9/5:30 mon/fri, then you can fight a little bit and throw in the work life balance issue, childcare etc.

However they may just refuse to bulge.

In that case, you could let them sack you and go to ET or resign and go to ET.

Or find another job.

How long you've been employed also plays an important role.

More info please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm afraid that imposing contractual changes is not difficult, particularly these days.

 

If the employer cites business requirements- and they have - then you are on very shaky ground as to whether you could won a case of unfair dismissal.

 

And that would mean that you refuse the changes, wait until the end of the notice, refuse to take the new contract

- and play roulette, because at that point you have no job and could lose the claim.

 

How far are you willing to go?

Are your willing to lose your job over this?

 

And also - are you employees, because a lot of logistics people aren't, so I need to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to change substantial terms of the contract they need to go through negotiation.

If no agreement is reached they should offer redeployment or redundancy.

Kicking people out because of business needs is a thing that should stay in the past.

Companies still do it and are happy to foot the bill at ET, but that doesn't make it normal, legal or ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have they made it clear that if you work as requested but they dont offer enough work you still get paid the same amount as before.

 

Like all of these "take it or leave" changes the employer relies on at least some of you accepting the terms because if no-one did and they then decided to carry out their threat then all of you would have a claim against them and they would have no-one to to the work for a couple of months at least, which would probably irreversibly damage their company.

 

What happens will depend on the consultations they hold and who and how they do this. This is where union representation (even for some) helps. Your employer would then gain the benefit as well.

 

A strong selling point for union recognition by employers used to be that they would at least get all of their H&S done for free as the reps attended some excellent courses at Whitehall College (glory days)

 

your problem is that many large companies like Honda have run similar schemes so your employer will be able to look at them and will have made decisions on the risks they face before they even spoke to you.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to change substantial terms of the contract they need to go through negotiation.

If no agreement is reached they should offer redeployment or redundancy.

Kicking people out because of business needs is a thing that should stay in the past.

Companies still do it and are happy to foot the bill at ET, but that doesn't make it normal, legal or ok.

 

I didn't say it was ok. I didn't say it was "normal" (whatever that is supposed to mean). But you are wrong when you say it isn't legal. Changing terms and conditions, and imposing that change is legal. You may not like that fact. I might not like that fact. The law doesn't care about our opinions. "Kicking people out because of business needs" is actually quite common, and as I explained already, provided the employer follows a legally correct process then there is every chance that an Employment Tribunal will find in favour of the employer. So you must be prepared to lose your job on the roll of a dice that you will win an employment tribunal which you may not win.

 

 

If the OP and their colleagues are not willing or able to do that it is moot - they won't stop the employer enforcing this. And even if they are in a union, which I am guessing they are not, it will still almost certainly come down to the same choice. Unless they - the employees - are willing to go down to other route. That being wholesale industrial action to bring their employer to their knees and force them to back off. I may be wrong about this, but I'm going to guess that neither losing their jobs nor industrial action are on their list of things that they will do. If I'm wrong about that then the OP can say so, and I'm more than happy to explain either the process to call strike action, or to take the appropriate steps to refuse the changes and go to tribunal - they just need to say which they want to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"provided the employer follows a legally correct process".

This is the key.

It is illegal for an employer to get up one morning and terminate the contract because they want to change the t&c.

Providing they follow the correct legal process, then they can implement changes.

If that wasn't the case, every employer willing to get rid of someone could change 9 to 5 to permanent nights or else.

As said, a contract, any contract works both ways and any change to it must be mutually agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"provided the employer follows a legally correct process".

This is the key.

It is illegal for an employer to get up one morning and terminate the contract because they want to change the t&c.

Providing they follow the correct legal process, then they can implement changes.

If that wasn't the case, every employer willing to get rid of someone could change 9 to 5 to permanent nights or else.

As said, a contract, any contract works both ways and any change to it must be mutually agreed.

 

No, that is not correct. Any change does not need to be mutually agreed. That would be the ideal. But the law that permits enforcement exists because the ideal doesn't always happen. Contracts in employment should be equal - in a perfect world. It isn't a perfect world and they are far from equal. Mutuality is therefore limited.

 

There is no legal definition as to where the boundary line is drawn. It is therefore the purview of am employment tribunal to decide what is legally fair or unfair. An experienced professional can make a best guess, with full possession of the facts, as to what a tribunal might deem fair. But if they were always right, there wouldn't be a need for tribunals - lawyers would just carve up the decisions.

 

So it remains the OPs choice as to whether they are prepared to take the risk. If they are not, then their only realistic option is to agree. Indeed, the law assumes agreement unless they Disagree. If they disagree, I have outlined the position, and am still happy to go into further detail as soon as they say what they want to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all subjected to following the correct procedure.

As said, an employer cannot change contractual t&c at the drop of a hat.

That would be a guaranteed win at ET.

Not that the employees would keep their job.

As said, some employers are willing to foot the ET bill to get rid of people

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the employer is consulting, as they should. They have sound business reasons. And no reduction in terms or pay. We never know everything, but that's close to text book perfect! And even if it isn't- so what? When the OP comes back and explains how they will fight back, then there's a fight. Which they may or may not win. But there's nobody who will "save them". They have to do this themselves. And we don't know that's a reach they are willing to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an employer want to change terms of service/employment contract and they give enough notice then accepting pay is enough to accept the new terms. It is a rare beast that can afford to come into work and work to rule for months without being paid because they have refused to accept the money that goes with the new terms.

It did happen where I used to work, a couple of people refused the new terms, turned up to work every day, asked whether they were still working under thier old terms, told no and then sat in a chair for the rest of the day and refused their pay. Now in an organisation with 5000 employees it was no big deal for the employer but they changed their approach next time workplace rationalisation was wanted. One of the 2 went to an ET, won but the employer appealed and it got dragged out for about 15 years, the other set up their own business and left after about 18 months.

Funny how there is specific employment legislation to deal with us lower types but those at the top dont use this law to get what they want when they are asked to leave for being rubbish. They use ordinary contract law that would give the majority a better settlement when unfairly treated most of the time but that is the point of it all. The OP may well be able to negotiate himself terms that suit this current situation but I would say that as soon as someone else gets wind of it he will have his contract changed to the new regime as well.

rambling over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, the op needs to sit down with a manager with authority and explain his childcare/family issues preventing change of hours.

They might be more reasonable than thought.

All needs to be then backed up in writing to HR.

Trying won't cost anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is saying to a person or group we are making a major change to your hours of work and if you don't like it you are out of a job "consulting"

 

Don't shoot the messenger. There's enough of that goes on. In employment law consulting means telling someone what you intend to do, listening to their comments, and then doing whatever you wanted to do in the first place. The law requires an employer to listen to workers comments, but no more than that.

 

It is then, as I have said repeatedly, up to the workers to decide what they are going to do about it. Whether that will succeed depends on what they do and, if that is to go to a tribunal, whether a court agrees. But it would be irresponsible not to point out that tribunals weigh heavily an employers arguments that their business needs require this, and so the chances of losing a tribunal are high. And either way, one won't have a job at the end of it. People are entitled to make informed decisions - not decisions based on what they want to hear or what things ought to be like.

 

It's pretty much moot anyway if the OP doesn't come back and say what they want to do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still maintain that the employer has a reasonable argument to implement the change.

Bank hours for busier times in the month.

 

If, for some bizarre reason the employees won and resisted the change.

 

Then the company has all these staff sat doing nothing in a quiet time and not enough staff to cope in the busy time... In no time the company would be upside-down and your all getting redundancy notices.

 

Whilst I have empathy for a change that is being brought in, and trust me they will bring it in even if you dont like it, they can Say its for the future good and survival of the company.

Some people just dont like change, they fear change. That's natural as your in your comfort zone.

 

But the company must do what's good for the company to thrive and make money.

If they are losing money you wont be in a job for very much longer.

 

What do you ultimately want?

A job or risk redundancy?

 

 

Ps, when I dont sugar coat replys I'm branded "a joke" from certain admin but when you do it sangie your hailed straight talking.... Wish it was fair and consistant across the board as it has to be where I work... 😁

Thank you for your no nonsence approach sangie, some people need to learn the term snowflakes!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry. I get it in the neck elsewhere. I am perpetually an inch from getting banned on another site because apparently telling people the truth is offensive! I am yet to figure that one out... Most recently someone deleted their post and then denied saying something that was in it. Several of us saw it and we all said that the OP had said it, when they insisted they hadn't. My comment was "you can lie to yourself, but we all read it so there's no point lying to us". That got me a final warning... To be honest, getting banned could be the biggest favour they do me. This site is much better moderated, and the admin do actually read the posts. On the other site someone is warned based solely on someone complaining - not on whether the comment is justified or true. Site admin don't even read the thread. There is no appeal. And there is no expiry date to any warning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...