Is this constructive dismissal?

[BMWBen]

Ok, so this scenario hasn't played out yet, and I'm filling in parts with how I think they're going to go, but I'd like m'learned friends' opinions on the matter anyway

I work a 5 day week, I chose my particular role because it didn't involve working "out of hours".

Now, today an email came down from on high asking us to detail how we were going to formally support things out of hours. It started with the premise that we already do this informally. Which we do, but only very loosely, on a "best effort" basis, without any obligation or expectation that we'll be available. I'd liken it to if your boss rang you up at the weekend to ask you something, you wouldn't tell him to f**k off, but he wouldn't necessarily expect you to answer.

We have a redundancy process in-flight at the moment, the cynic in me finds the timing of this objectionable.

I have no formal job description. I do have a contract of employment.

In order to meet their demands I would have to be available for contact 24/7 for one week in four. At the weekend I would have to take a laptop with me wherever I went and be able to drop everything and log on to work at the drop of hat. I current enjoy my weekend leisure time very much, and this would be a massive and impossible hindrance.

My question: could this demand from my employer constitute constructive dismissal?

[ian in lancs]

1 You have a job
2 Give & take

and any employer (not) worth his salt can steer round the regulations. What does your contract of employment say? Does it mention the 'reasonable' word? If so you're stuffed! Will you get paid (premium) to work the extra? Will you time off in lieu?

[Jasandjules]

I doubt that would be constructive dismissal at all.

It may constitute a unilateral change to the terms of the employment contract.

What exactly will they be asking you to do? Are they suggesting any compensation? (Perhaps, having a job instead of being laid off)

[BMWBen]

Jasandjules said:

I doubt that would be constructive dismissal at all.

It may constitute a unilateral change to the terms of the employment contract.

What exactly will they be asking you to do? Are they suggesting any compensation? (Perhaps, having a job instead of being laid off)

No compensation. I'm not "at risk".

[BMWBen]

ian in lancs said:

1 You have a job
2 Give & take

and any employer (not) worth his salt can steer round the regulations. What does your contract of employment say? Does it mention the 'reasonable' word? If so you're stuffed! Will you get paid (premium) to work the extra? Will you time off in lieu?

No additional pay, no time off in lieu. My contract does mention "reasonable" - but would "reasonable" mean changing from 9-5 to 1 week in 4 having to not have any plans and be available 24/7?

[J_S_G]

BMWBen said:

ian in lancs said:

1 You have a job
2 Give & take

and any employer (not) worth his salt can steer round the regulations. What does your contract of employment say? Does it mention the 'reasonable' word? If so you're stuffed! Will you get paid (premium) to work the extra? Will you time off in lieu?

No additional pay, no time off in lieu. My contract does mention "reasonable" - but would "reasonable" mean changing from 9-5 to 1 week in 4 having to not have any plans and be available 24/7?

Been there, had that happen before, and for negligible extra money. Also done it once before, got a few thousand a year out of it a year, and generally only got one call every 3-4 months, with everybody in the team agreeing to switch days, etc. pretty often to make sure it didn't get in the way of anybody's life... The devil's in the detail of how it's compensated for/run.

Tend to find that if you stay in a job for a long(ish) time, it'll either become cushier and cushier as you become indespensible without doing much, or worse and worse (far more likely!) as perks are eroded, "long term baggage" builds up, and extra responsibilities dumped on you. It's kind of a good thing as it makes you question whether it's worth looking at the job market.

[edwardsje]

BMWBen said:

Ok, so this scenario hasn't played out yet, and I'm filling in parts with how I think they're going to go, but I'd like m'learned friends' opinions on the matter anyway

I work a 5 day week, I chose my particular role because it didn't involve working "out of hours".

Now, today an email came down from on high asking us to detail how we were going to formally support things out of hours. It started with the premise that we already do this informally. Which we do, but only very loosely, on a "best effort" basis, without any obligation or expectation that we'll be available. I'd liken it to if your boss rang you up at the weekend to ask you something, you wouldn't tell him to f**k off, but he wouldn't necessarily expect you to answer.

We have a redundancy process in-flight at the moment, the cynic in me finds the timing of this objectionable.

I have no formal job description. I do have a contract of employment.

In order to meet their demands I would have to be available for contact 24/7 for one week in four. At the weekend I would have to take a laptop with me wherever I went and be able to drop everything and log on to work at the drop of hat. I current enjoy my weekend leisure time very much, and this would be a massive and impossible hindrance.

My question: could this demand from my employer constitute constructive dismissal?

There's some context missing - is the out of hours informal cover on a "once in a blue moon" basis?

If so, then highly unlikely that, were you to resign & claim CD, a Tribunal would consider that reasonable - "Mr B Ben, all the company were seeking to do was to formalise an arrangement that you are already taking part in. It happens so infrequently that we hold that the employer's actions were reasonable and we therefore reject your claim"

If however it's the case that this is frequently required, and your colleagues typically cover this rather than you, then you might be in with a shout, but I'd still not be keen to run it.

ETA coherence

Edited by edwardsje on Wednesday 1st July 10:43

[Slurms]

Looks like an opportunity to formalise the process and agree extra payment..

In my current role we cover 1 week in 5 - get paid 24/7 at a nominal "standby rate" and then if called a much increased hourly rate..

Probably get called once in every two shifts.

Edited by Slurms on Wednesday 1st July 10:06

[BMWBen]

edwardsje said:

BMWBen said:

Ok, so this scenario hasn't played out yet, and I'm filling in parts with how I think they're going to go, but I'd like m'learned friends' opinions on the matter anyway

I work a 5 day week, I chose my particular role because it didn't involve working "out of hours".

Now, today an email came down from on high asking us to detail how we were going to formally support things out of hours. It started with the premise that we already do this informally. Which we do, but only very loosely, on a "best effort" basis, without any obligation or expectation that we'll be available. I'd liken it to if your boss rang you up at the weekend to ask you something, you wouldn't tell him to f**k off, but he wouldn't necessarily expect you to answer.

We have a redundancy process in-flight at the moment, the cynic in me finds the timing of this objectionable.

I have no formal job description. I do have a contract of employment.

In order to meet their demands I would have to be available for contact 24/7 for one week in four. At the weekend I would have to take a laptop with me wherever I went and be able to drop everything and log on to work at the drop of hat. I current enjoy my weekend leisure time very much, and this would be a massive and impossible hindrance.

My question: could this demand from my employer constitute constructive dismissal?

There's some context missing - is the out of hours informal cover on a "once in a blue moon" basis?

If so, then highly unlikely that, were you to resign & claim CD, a Tribunal would consider that reasonable - "Mr B Ben, all the company were seeking to do was to formalise an arrangement that you are already taking part in. It happens so infrequently that we hold that the employer's actions were reasonable and we therefore reject your claim"

If however it's the case that this is frequently required, and your colleagues typically cover this rather than you, then you might be in with a shout, but I'd still not be keen to run it.

ETA coherence

Edited by edwardsje on Wednesday 1st July 10:43

It is on a once in a blue moon basis, and it is not "expected". i.e. if when the moon is blue someone can't get hold of me it doesn't matter. My worry with what we are being told to do is that i will HAVE to be contactable, and that it will no longer be once in a blue moon.

I agree that formalising the fact that people may "try" and contact me once in a blue moon is fine, perfectly reasonable. So i've asked them to formalise exactly what it is that is expected of us before agreeing to anything.

[edwardsje]

[quote=BMWBen

It is on a once in a blue moon basis, and it is not "expected". i.e. if when the moon is blue someone can't get hold of me it doesn't matter. My worry with what we are being told to do is that i will HAVE to be contactable, and that it will no longer be once in a blue moon.

I agree that formalising the fact that people may "try" and contact me once in a blue moon is fine, perfectly reasonable. So i've asked them to formalise exactly what it is that is expected of us before agreeing to anything.
[/quote]

That's fairy nuff - gives you an opportunity to engage and agree limits/caps/procedures etc.