Employment Law Advice required please

[Fore_right]

Afternoon all

 

I'm hoping someone can help me advise a friend with an issue he has at work

 

My friend is employed as a civilian within the emergency services. Recently they have been under a review, this subsequently resulted in a re structure within the department. My friends job title has stayed the same but the name of the unit changed. They were told to sign new contracts or accept redundancy. This new contract was at a lower pay scale losing them a few hundred pounds per month. Contracts were signed to stay in employment but stated as accepting under protest.

 

Their role profile had 3 duties added to it (things they don't do and have received no training for), in fact the role profile and summary of duties are 95% the same as before. Due to the restructure of the department the role was classed as a "new" role; due to it being classed as a new role (even tho the exact same duties are carried out as before) the review team and the HR department are saying there is NO right to appeal the decision.

 

My friend is wanting to submit a fairness at work grievance as they have not been allowed to comment or input on the entire process (despite being told they could, their job has even been re-evaluated by people who do not understand the complexity of the job)

 

Can anybody offer any guidance or advice as to the legalities surrounding this scenario and what route to take for a grievance against their employer

 

Cheers

 

Fore_right

[BazzaS]

Afternoon all

 

I'm hoping someone can help me advise a friend with an issue he has at work

 

My friend is employed as a civilian within the emergency services. Recently they have been under a review, this subsequently resulted in a re structure within the department. My friends job title has stayed the same but the name of the unit changed. They were told to sign new contracts or accept redundancy. This new contract was at a lower pay scale losing them a few hundred pounds per month. Contracts were signed to stay in employment but stated as accepting under protest.

 

Their role profile had 3 duties added to it (things they don't do and have received no training for), in fact the role profile and summary of duties are 95% the same as before. Due to the restructure of the department the role was classed as a "new" role; due to it being classed as a new role (even tho the exact same duties are carried out as before) the review team and the HR department are saying there is NO right to appeal the decision.

 

My friend is wanting to submit a fairness at work grievance as they have not been allowed to comment or input on the entire process (despite being told they could, their job has even been re-evaluated by people who do not understand the complexity of the job)

 

Can anybody offer any guidance or advice as to the legalities surrounding this scenario and what route to take for a grievance against their employer

 

Cheers

 

Fore_right

 

Are they in a union?

[Fore_right]

Yes, the union have advised them to submit a grievance but that's all

[MLSolicitors]

While the fundamental principles of contract law state that any variations need to be agreed by both parties, an employer is able to make changes to a contract of employment in situations where economic circumstances means that the company has to restructure.

 

An employer can do this in one of three ways:

 

1. Make the changes and dismiss all those who refuse to agree. This makes the employer vulnerable to claims for unfair dismissal (if the employee has over two years’ service) and wrongful dismissal (if no notice is served).

 

2. Terminate all existing contracts and offer new ones, but again, this makes the employer vulnerable to claims for unfair dismissal (if the employee has over two years’ service) and wrongful dismissal (if no notice is served).

 

However, you have a duty to mitigate your losses if you decide to pursue a claim through the tribunal for unfair dismissal, and it could be argued that by refusing to accept the new job/contract that you have failed in that duty and you could have the level of your damages severally reduced.

 

3. To impose the changes and leave it to the employees to decide how to respond. This may result in claims of constructive dismissal if the employees decide to resign immediately due to a fundamental breach of contract.

 

Unfortunately it is not enough to simply say that you are working ‘under protest’ as it doesn’t legally hold much weight. The longer someone continues to work under the new contract terms it become easier to argue that they have accepted them. This also applies to constructive dismissal claims; it is difficult to argue a breach of contract if you appear to have accepted the terms.

 

Submitting a grievance is an option if you are not happy with a situation but in the circumstances it may not provide you with the results your friend is looking for. Most companies have a grievance policy which will tell you how to submit a grievance, who to submit it to and the procedure that will be followed.

 

If you want more advice, just search Google for 'Michael Lewin Solicitors' and drop us an email or call us (sorry, can't provide website address or email addy until we've got 10 posts under out belts!)

 

Good Luck

[ericsbrother]

They should have got the union Fulltime officers involved at an earlier stage as the threat of redundancy for not signing a new contract is unlawful. there are procedures that need to be followed and redundancy applies to certain fixed conditions, not reducing people's pay.

[scaifea]

While the fundamental principles of contract law state that any variations need to be agreed by both parties, an employer is able to make changes to a contract of employment in situations where economic circumstances means that the company has to restructure.

 

An employer can do this in one of three ways:

 

1. Make the changes and dismiss all those who refuse to agree. This makes the employer vulnerable to claims for unfair dismissal (if the employee has over two years’ service) and wrongful dismissal (if no notice is served).

 

2. Terminate all existing contracts and offer new ones, but again, this makes the employer vulnerable to claims for unfair dismissal (if the employee has over two years’ service) and wrongful dismissal (if no notice is served).

 

However, you have a duty to mitigate your losses if you decide to pursue a claim through the tribunal for unfair dismissal, and it could be argued that by refusing to accept the new job/contract that you have failed in that duty and you could have the level of your damages severally reduced.

 

3. To impose the changes and leave it to the employees to decide how to respond. This may result in claims of constructive dismissal if the employees decide to resign immediately due to a fundamental breach of contract.

 

Unfortunately it is not enough to simply say that you are working ‘under protest’ as it doesn’t legally hold much weight. The longer someone continues to work under the new contract terms it become easier to argue that they have accepted them. This also applies to constructive dismissal claims; it is difficult to argue a breach of contract if you appear to have accepted the terms.

 

Submitting a grievance is an option if you are not happy with a situation but in the circumstances it may not provide you with the results your friend is looking for. Most companies have a grievance policy which will tell you how to submit a grievance, who to submit it to and the procedure that will be followed.

[obiter dictum]

When an employer wishes to change the terms of a contract of employment, The employee can do one of three things:

 

1. Accept the contractual change

2. Accept the change but work under protest (Grievance/Disagreement/ Collective Bargaining etc)

3. Resign and claim constructive dismissal (Not a good idea)

 

By working under protest the employer cannot use Custom and practice to any implied agreement to that imposed contractual change is accepted by the employee. It very much carries legal weight as it is part of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ACAS code of practice as to minimum standards. It is used to enable all grievance and Industrial Relations procedures to be exhausted first