Help! Employer bullying staff into new contracts

[Globs]

A question for legal minded people about employment law, advice needed!

Someone I know works part time for a big department store, possibly ending with 'hams'. Currently they work three weekdays only, but all part time staff are now being bullied into signing a new contract that forces them to work weekends and evenings too.

So the 'consultation' process starts with a meeting telling them what the new contract is, and getting them to sign a paper that they have received this consultation. My friend has not signed this (on my advice) but everyone else did.

On the 2nd meeting they get told that they must sign the new contract by the 11th Sept, and start working the new hours on the 18th Sept. No one wants to sign this and no one has yet.

Now the interesting bit - apparently this is also going on in another store and people who have not signed by the 11th get letters telling them to sign it or their employment will be terminated. So we are now fully expecting one of these threat letters next week.

Could you please tell us the correct legal terminology to a) use in a letter to nip this threat in the bud or b) to use in a letter after we have received this, and what contract and employment law they are breaking by doing this?

Many thanks in advance

[Globs]

Don't employers need a reason to dismiss people?
Otherwise surely it's breach of contract by the company?

[Globs]

Countdown said:

The company needs to be able to demonstrate that it has a valid reason for offering the new contracts. I think the phrase is "some other substantive reason". But yes, I can confirm that what they are doing is legal. It also seems to be inreasingly common.

Yes it does seem to be rather common now .
The reason it has given is that they think the weekday staff are better then the saturday staff, so they want the weekday staff to also work saturdays. Most are now involved with looking for other jobs, but I wondered if there was recourse via the courts like 'constructive dissmisal' or similar.

[Globs]

Tonberry said:

Globs said:

Don't employers need a reason to dismiss people?
Otherwise surely it's breach of contract by the company?

They won't be dismissing you.

YOU will be terminating your contract by not signing the new one.

If they do not sign but turn up at work during the new contract period, this will be taken as an effetual signing of the new contract.

Is that right? There is nothing in the old contract that says she has to sign any new one they offer.

So basically you are saying that she has to take the new contract (even by default), or just not turn up in which case she can be sacked anyway?! Is this really the result of over a decade of NuLabour, 'party of the workers'?? Unbelievable!

[Globs]

tank slapper said:

Apache said:

I'd start jobhunting if I were your friend, this has all the signs of a business in trouble

It sounds more like a new middle management know-all trying to impress his new boss. It never fails to amaze me how little value some companies place on the goodwill of their staff.

This (pdf) leaflet from ACAS has some relevant information.

Spot on, the store manager came from MeadowHall where he implemented this system, now he's trying it in Cambridge to impress head office.
Goodwill from the staff left the building the minute this was announced - no one is happy there now, even the die-hard company types who have been there for over a decade are joining unions and getting stroppy now, many have children to look after at the weekends and evenings - it's just a disaster for over 15 of the staff.

Thanks for the leaflet reference - will pass it on

[Globs]

Du1point8 said:

you havent said if it every weekend and every evening of if its when they need they to restock or cover staff, etc.

It's every 3 out of 4 weekends and for part time workers it's at least 1 evening a week, and at least 2 evenings for full time staff.

I have no idea why they can't just hire students for evenings and weekends like any sane organisation would do, pissing off your entire workforce and forcing them to leave seems to be a bit short sighted to me.

I'm sure they'll fill the vacancies but with a much higher churn rate and people who care rather less about running things well.

[Globs]

Just adding: I got the numbers of people affected wrong, there are 15 people affected in that department of Debenxxxams, overall over 200 people in the store are going to have their lives turned upside down by these changes.

So if you are recruiting just wander into your local branch on a weekday, they all want to leave

[Globs]

Tonberry said:

Deva Link said:

The contact can't just end. The employer has to dismiss the employee and give notice (as has happened in the Shropshire Council example).

Whether a tribunal would find the dismissal was unfair or not, depends on how the original contract was worded. Chances are it might allow for such changes.

You're probably right.

Not really sure if I really want to find out though so we've all signed our new contracts like good little employees.

What I do not understand is that the whole exercise demonstrates that the original contracts are not (readily) enforceable.
So why do they bother forcing people to sign new ones???