Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Substantial changes to Job Description


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4395 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

I have been off sick following a car accident (7 months ago) and am just returning to work. Employers want to alter my Job description to only one element. This element didn;t even take up 1% of my previous role and now its going to be 100% without any discussion or agreement. I am not getting a new Job description they are just focusing me only only one element of my previous JD. Can this be done? I feel i do not have the skills or training to focus on this role 100% which will be counselling emotional children.

Any help out there as to what i should do? I want to raise a grievance saying that i do not accept the changes and want my old role back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, am new to this forum but hopefully I may be able to help here. I guess the crux of the issue is why they are changing your job. Are they changing it to assist you with your return to the workplace? Has someone else got your role? Are they making redundancies? Have the needs of the business changed? Initially I would suggest you call a meeting with them again to discuss this so that you can understand where this change is coming from. I think you need to explain that you don't have the skills and abilities to do this proposed change, and ask how they intend to train you for this new role. If you start working in the new role, then by law you will be deemed to have accepted the change in your job description. Business changes and redundancies are legitimate reasons for changing employees roles, but there does need to be an element of consultation here, rather than forcing it on you as soon as you walk through the door. If an informal discussion doesn't assist you or bring some resolution, then you could go through the grievance route, but I personally feel a grievance is a last resort. It may be that your old role is redundant, and therefore you could ask them if you refuse to accept the change to the role, what they intend to do. I would recommend you take notes of any conversations you have, and correspondence on email etc. All of this will need to be used should you go down a grievance route, or an Employment Tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for your response. I work in a school and my job still exists just that the head and my co-colleague appear not to want me to do my old role. I have had a meeting with the head but he appears adament that i won't be doing my old role - no reasons given why. I am going to contact him today to state that i am unhappy with the proposed changes in percentage terms, i have mentored i pupil for no more than 20 hours. I am contracted to work 1332 hours per school year so this equates to 0.015% so an increase to 100% is very substantial and fundamental.

Any help is gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, given you work in a school, I guess you may be in a union? If not, I would suggest you contact them and see if they can offer you some assistance here.

The change in your job description is a substantial change if it has increased that much in percentage to be being the sole responsibility. An employer can change job description duties, providing they have done adequate consultation, put it in writing and given you training and a notice period of when the change is due to take place. You need to find out the reason why they have changed your job requirements, and if it has just affected you, and if so why. Legally they have to tell you the business reason, as they are making a change to your contract of employment by changing the nature of your job.

Are you open to redundancy? You may have a case to argue that your role has been made redundant. Also, if the role is substantially less in responsibility, are they proposing to demote your pay or grade? Explain to them in your meeting that you need more information, and ask what other alternative options they had instead of making this job change.

As before, you need to get them to put it in writing to you, and take notes of everything. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been back this week, feels like i've been sent to Coventry as everyone really hostile. Sat in same office at a childs desk with a VDU that i have to look down on so all of these aspects need looking at. Someone else is doing most of my role and 'm now expected to 'grow' into how they want my role to alter from my role that i was doing before i went off sick. New process to pick up underperforming children in lessons and tackle any issues. I'm not doing any aspect of my previous role as my hours now steadily increase i'm wondering what i can do. Head also wants be to work in classrooms which is not in current job description but answer was that job description states i support pupils and does not specify place that this happens so it can be in class or in the behaviour unit! Any ideas for way forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, it's a bit difficult to give my HR opinion on this without knowing all the full details of your story. If someone has been off sick, an employer would have had to found a way to cover the work so absorbing it across a team or having another person doing it would be reasonable.On your return it wouldn't be unreasonable for them still to be doing this, to help settle you back. However, on your return you should expect to have your old role back. If the needs of the business (or school) has changed, then they should still have formally consulted with you about the change. It's not acceptable or legal to give your job away to someone else.

 

You have a couple of choices here: 1 -take out a formal grievance, 2, make an informal complaint (as described in my previous thread)3: do nothing and accept the change.

 

Being totally honest here, if you need your job and you need to pay your mortgage etc, then making too many ripples is not going to help you. Being in a double dip recession, I'm not sure how easy you would find it to get another job, if you resigned or took redundancy. If you take out a formal grievance, you are unlikely to ever get promoted, and it may be the death of your career in this school. Grievances never result in great working relationships after they have passed. I speak from an HR persons experience in private and public sector.

 

I think you still need to understand why they have made these changes, and reading your thread, I don't think they have explained this fully to you.Why give a colleague your job, and ask you to grow into another role? Why give you a child's desk to work at on your return? Are you definitely sure your colleagues are hostile, or are the changes getting to you since you have returned? I think you need to go back and speak to the headmaster again and get all of your questions answered. Don't be afraid to ask direct questions. It might make them backtrack on what they are doing. Take in a list and go through them point by point, and keep drilling down till you get the answers you want. Write down what they say. As before, go and seek union help, if you feel they are not listening. Otherwise, there is always ACAS and the CAB.

 

I think you have to be happy with whatever route you take here, and only you can know where to go with this and choose that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...