Forced to sign new contract for lower pay - or leave.
Discussion
hacksaw said:
timbo999 said:
Close but no cigar... £479 is the MAXIMUM payment per year of service not the minimum (there isn't a minimum) - you get a weeks pay for each year of service up to a maximum of £479 for each year. However that's the statutory amount and the employees contract may give them more.
Close but no cigar, half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years.
hacksaw said:
Close but no cigar,
half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years.
The cigar is all yours... I agree I oversimplified, the point I was keen to make is that statutory payments are capped (both in terms of the weekly amount and the number of qualifying years as you rightly point out) and that there is no 'minimum' as such.half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years.
Let's hope the people concerned have contracted redundancy terms!
The devil is in the detail, but yes an employer can dismiss and re-engage on lower terms, those that do not chose to take the new contract can be dismissed without compensation.
For the employer to be able to do this they must
1.) Have followed a fair process of consultation to attempt to reach prior agreement to the changes, exhausting other options, and
2.) Show they have dismissed fairly. In most cases this will rely on 'Some other substantial reason' (SOSR), by showing a real/compelling business case/financial pressure. This pressure would not need to be as drastic as liquidation though
Historically tribunals have been relatively sympathetic to companies in their 'SOSR' justifications.
However key points a Tribunal would want answered if the reason is cost based are
- Non-employee cost reductions having been sought or made, eg suppliers
- That the burden of reduction is not unequal eg management also have a reduction in pay
Breadvan of this parish would give a much better review if he was around.
As always your friend should seek professional advice from a competent employment lawyer, not from random car geeks
For the employer to be able to do this they must
1.) Have followed a fair process of consultation to attempt to reach prior agreement to the changes, exhausting other options, and
2.) Show they have dismissed fairly. In most cases this will rely on 'Some other substantial reason' (SOSR), by showing a real/compelling business case/financial pressure. This pressure would not need to be as drastic as liquidation though
Historically tribunals have been relatively sympathetic to companies in their 'SOSR' justifications.
However key points a Tribunal would want answered if the reason is cost based are
- Non-employee cost reductions having been sought or made, eg suppliers
- That the burden of reduction is not unequal eg management also have a reduction in pay
Breadvan of this parish would give a much better review if he was around.
As always your friend should seek professional advice from a competent employment lawyer, not from random car geeks
wsurfa said:
The devil is in the detail, but yes an employer can dismiss and re-engage on lower terms, those that do not chose to take the new contract can be dismissed without compensation.
For the employer to be able to do this they must
1.) Have followed a fair process of consultation to attempt to reach prior agreement to the changes, exhausting other options, and
2.) Show they have dismissed fairly. In most cases this will rely on 'Some other substantial reason' (SOSR), by showing a real/compelling business case/financial pressure. This pressure would not need to be as drastic as liquidation though
Historically tribunals have been relatively sympathetic to companies in their 'SOSR' justifications.
However key points a Tribunal would want answered if the reason is cost based are
- Non-employee cost reductions having been sought or made, eg suppliers
- That the burden of reduction is not unequal eg management also have a reduction in pay
Breadvan of this parish would give a much better review if he was around.
As always your friend should seek professional advice from a competent employment lawyer, not from random car geeks
Interesting. I did not know this.For the employer to be able to do this they must
1.) Have followed a fair process of consultation to attempt to reach prior agreement to the changes, exhausting other options, and
2.) Show they have dismissed fairly. In most cases this will rely on 'Some other substantial reason' (SOSR), by showing a real/compelling business case/financial pressure. This pressure would not need to be as drastic as liquidation though
Historically tribunals have been relatively sympathetic to companies in their 'SOSR' justifications.
However key points a Tribunal would want answered if the reason is cost based are
- Non-employee cost reductions having been sought or made, eg suppliers
- That the burden of reduction is not unequal eg management also have a reduction in pay
Breadvan of this parish would give a much better review if he was around.
As always your friend should seek professional advice from a competent employment lawyer, not from random car geeks
FGB said:
Alternatively She could tell them that's not how it works and they should go f
k themselves !
Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
Unfortunately, if the employer has followed the correct process, they can.k themselves !Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
A few years ago one of the local council dismissed its entire workforce and re-engaged them on about a 5% cut
wsurfa said:
FGB said:
Alternatively She could tell them that's not how it works and they should go fk themselves !
Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
Unfortunately, if the employer has followed the correct process, they can.k themselves !Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
A few years ago one of the local council dismissed its entire workforce and re-engaged them on about a 5% cut
As I said get a lawyer / advice from a professional.
FGB said:
wsurfa said:
FGB said:
Alternatively She could tell them that's not how it works and they should go fk themselves !
Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
Unfortunately, if the employer has followed the correct process, they can.k themselves !Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
A few years ago one of the local council dismissed its entire workforce and re-engaged them on about a 5% cut
As I said get a lawyer / advice from a professional.
Edit to add: It is quite possible that their process is flawed, which is what the specialist advice may help with
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th September 23:30
wsurfa said:
FGB said:
wsurfa said:
FGB said:
Alternatively She could tell them that's not how it works and they should go fk themselves !
Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
Unfortunately, if the employer has followed the correct process, they can.k themselves !Tell your friend to get a lawyer / Citizen's Advice and take it from there !
A few years ago one of the local council dismissed its entire workforce and re-engaged them on about a 5% cut
As I said get a lawyer / advice from a professional.
Edit to add: It is quite possible that their process is flawed, which is what the specialist advice may help with
Edited by wsurfa on Wednesday 14th September 23:30
Being told sign or f
k off is not consulting last time I was involved in this sort of stuff 
.Definitely do not resign!
Is this part of an organisation-wide "Job Evaluation/ Pay & Grading" review?
I'm guessing that, at some point, the HA would have been either an ALMO or part of the Council. In which case there would be a strong Union presence so your freind should refer to them as first point of call.
I'm guessing that, at some point, the HA would have been either an ALMO or part of the Council. In which case there would be a strong Union presence so your freind should refer to them as first point of call.
Countdown said:
Is this part of an organisation-wide "Job Evaluation/ Pay & Grading" review?
I'm guessing that, at some point, the HA would have been either an ALMO or part of the Council. In which case there would be a strong Union presence so your freind should refer to them as first point of call.
It's part of the latest round of 'consultations' or 'role review' programme. Several other departments such as finance and administration have all been shuffled around, but in those reviews, no one was asked to take a pay cut, but people were asked to move to different jobs for the same pay.I'm guessing that, at some point, the HA would have been either an ALMO or part of the Council. In which case there would be a strong Union presence so your freind should refer to them as first point of call.
The HA has always been an independent. It started as a 'Housing Society' opened as a charity in 1966. It has never been part of the council.
She has now spoken to a solicitor and I will update the thread when I learn more.
The situation right now, is that she as been asked to sign the new contract and therefore accept the new pay, she has refused to do so, and it has turned into a bit of a Mexican standoff...
She is still doing any and all work that is asked of her as normal. But it raises a point that if she starts performing her new role when asked to do so, is this seen as her accepting her new contract?
I can't help thinking this won't end well for her as the HA always have consultants and lawyers coming out of their ears before making any changes to jobs, salaries and anything else HR related. So the chances are they are well prepared for any and every outcome.
NinjaPower said:
She is still doing any and all work that is asked of her as normal. But it raises a point that if she starts performing her new role when asked to do so, is this seen as her accepting her new contract?
I think that would depend on the wording of any flexible duties clause in her existing contract. However that could easily work in her favour, by covering the new duties within existing contract.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff