Employment Law/Regulations Question .......please
Discussion
What ho chaps, asking on behalf of my wife.
She has worked as a paid employee of a charity (if that makes any difference), giving support at home domiciliary care to what are described as vulnerable adults , for almost a year now.
Her original contract of employment says, 35 hours per week, permanent, Monday to Sunday "flexible", they don't actually work on Sundays, but if you work a Saturday you get an extra £1.60 per hour.
They are now trying to change her contract to 25 hours per week with alternate Saturdays on a rota, still with the extra £1.60 per hour, possible overtime available, but at base rate except Saturday.
Can her employer force this new contract on her ?
Many thanks in advance.
She has worked as a paid employee of a charity (if that makes any difference), giving support at home domiciliary care to what are described as vulnerable adults , for almost a year now.
Her original contract of employment says, 35 hours per week, permanent, Monday to Sunday "flexible", they don't actually work on Sundays, but if you work a Saturday you get an extra £1.60 per hour.
They are now trying to change her contract to 25 hours per week with alternate Saturdays on a rota, still with the extra £1.60 per hour, possible overtime available, but at base rate except Saturday.
Can her employer force this new contract on her ?
Many thanks in advance.
Nigel Worc's said:
She doesn't want the new terms, not that many people would want their hours dropped I guess.
If I am reading the replies correctly, she can refuse, and they can sack her for doing so.
Is that the gist ?
Substantially yes. I think they need to demonstrate "business reasons" for doing so but assuming they can do this then Yes, they can offer a revised contract. If she doesn't accept it then she has no job.If I am reading the replies correctly, she can refuse, and they can sack her for doing so.
Is that the gist ?
Nigel Worc's said:
She doesn't want the new terms, not that many people would want their hours dropped I guess.
If I am reading the replies correctly, she can refuse, and they can sack her for doing so.
Is that the gist ?
As I understand current law For any employee with less than 2 years service an employee can basically say "thanks but i've decided it's not working out between us, farewell", needn't be a business reason and once the employee has gone they can recruit a replacement.If I am reading the replies correctly, she can refuse, and they can sack her for doing so.
Is that the gist ?
This stuff leaves me cold !
Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Yet on this occasion my wifes employer can do as they wish.
Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Yet on this occasion my wifes employer can do as they wish.
Nigel Worc's said:
This stuff leaves me cold !
Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Why did you want to vary his contract?Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Businesses relocate all the time. Either the employee moves or he takes redundancy. I'm curious as to what your Solicitor said because he sound a bit rubbish.
Nigel Worc's said:
This stuff leaves me cold !
Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Yet on this occasion my wifes employer can do as they wish.
All changes at 2years service, employees get some rights then!Last year my business partner and I were looking at taking over a company, the company was based in Bedford, we are in Worcestershire, and a troublesome employee that we were obliged to have lived in Market Harborough, obviously in this case we were being advised by a solicitor.
We couldn't vary his contract in any way at all, benefits, vehicle etc, we couldn't require him to travel the extra time/distance to where we were going to relocate the business to, and so on.
Yet on this occasion my wifes employer can do as they wish.
It was part of the deal that we had to take him, to avoid the original company owner having to pay him redundancy (although they didn't put it like that), he had eighteen years service.
He was on a good salary, actually far more than I think he was worth (and I had worked with him for his eighteen years service, as his senior engineer, although I was only part time, having my own business).
He had a very nice fully financed company car, and was paid a bonus every year.
The relocation would have caused his working day to increase by two hours (travelling time), but at no cost as his car would have been ours.
He was being legally advised, and so were we.
I couldn't insist he just traveled the extra, I would have to compensate him for this, if he agreed to do it, and his bonus magically became salary because they'd paid him it for many years, it was no longer really a bonus, despite his employer thinking it was.
He wanted redundancy to be honest (and he eventually got it, as we pulled out because of him plus many other reasons), the original owner wanted us to be liable not himself, we were warned we could also possibly be liable for constructive dismissal.
Having been on the end of that, I find myself a little surprised that my wifes employer can largely do as he wishes, but there you go.
He was on a good salary, actually far more than I think he was worth (and I had worked with him for his eighteen years service, as his senior engineer, although I was only part time, having my own business).
He had a very nice fully financed company car, and was paid a bonus every year.
The relocation would have caused his working day to increase by two hours (travelling time), but at no cost as his car would have been ours.
He was being legally advised, and so were we.
I couldn't insist he just traveled the extra, I would have to compensate him for this, if he agreed to do it, and his bonus magically became salary because they'd paid him it for many years, it was no longer really a bonus, despite his employer thinking it was.
He wanted redundancy to be honest (and he eventually got it, as we pulled out because of him plus many other reasons), the original owner wanted us to be liable not himself, we were warned we could also possibly be liable for constructive dismissal.
Having been on the end of that, I find myself a little surprised that my wifes employer can largely do as he wishes, but there you go.
Marcellus said:
As I understand current law For any employee with less than 2 years service an employee can basically say "thanks but i've decided it's not working out between us, farewell", needn't be a business reason and once the employee has gone they can recruit a replacement.
Almost. They still need to do anything required under the contract, but that will usually just be notice. No notice means breach of contract (but the damages would be small - probably just the lost earnings during the notice period)Nigel Worc's said:
It was part of the deal that we had to take him, to avoid the original company owner having to pay him redundancy (although they didn't put it like that), he had eighteen years service.
He was on a good salary, actually far more than I think he was worth (and I had worked with him for his eighteen years service, as his senior engineer, although I was only part time, having my own business).
He had a very nice fully financed company car, and was paid a bonus every year.
The relocation would have caused his working day to increase by two hours (travelling time), but at no cost as his car would have been ours.
He was being legally advised, and so were we.
I couldn't insist he just traveled the extra, I would have to compensate him for this, if he agreed to do it, and his bonus magically became salary because they'd paid him it for many years, it was no longer really a bonus, despite his employer thinking it was.
He wanted redundancy to be honest (and he eventually got it, as we pulled out because of him plus many other reasons), the original owner wanted us to be liable not himself, we were warned we could also possibly be liable for constructive dismissal.
Having been on the end of that, I find myself a little surprised that my wifes employer can largely do as he wishes, but there you go.
He was on a good salary, actually far more than I think he was worth (and I had worked with him for his eighteen years service, as his senior engineer, although I was only part time, having my own business).
He had a very nice fully financed company car, and was paid a bonus every year.
The relocation would have caused his working day to increase by two hours (travelling time), but at no cost as his car would have been ours.
He was being legally advised, and so were we.
I couldn't insist he just traveled the extra, I would have to compensate him for this, if he agreed to do it, and his bonus magically became salary because they'd paid him it for many years, it was no longer really a bonus, despite his employer thinking it was.
He wanted redundancy to be honest (and he eventually got it, as we pulled out because of him plus many other reasons), the original owner wanted us to be liable not himself, we were warned we could also possibly be liable for constructive dismissal.
Having been on the end of that, I find myself a little surprised that my wifes employer can largely do as he wishes, but there you go.
So what you are saying is that IF you had made an agreement then you would have been subject to those onerous conditions but you didn't and do you weren't.
Really a no brainer to get around that, so one must assume some or all of the many other things were the real stumbling blocks?
The difference here is that your wife's employer is governed by employment law; you would have been subject to terms outside of that, which you would have agreed to if you'd proceeded. A big difference.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th March 08:28
No surely both Nigel and his wife are both being subjected to the same UK employment law, under which;
- with less than 2 years an employer can do virtually what they want and the employee has no protection
- with more than 2 years the employee has a lot of protection and the employer has to comply.
It's the flip side of the same law.
- with less than 2 years an employer can do virtually what they want and the employee has no protection
- with more than 2 years the employee has a lot of protection and the employer has to comply.
It's the flip side of the same law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff