Change of contract

lyndsey80

Some of us are being asked to take pay cuts or a shorter week with a pay cut to reflect.

We have been told that we will get letters on Monday, but they are to be backdated to start from June 1st - is this allowed?

Also, I had my consultation and said I could take a 3% pay cut and nothing more, I already live on nothing so it would mean I can't even pay my debts every month!! If they say take a 5% or 9 day fortnight with 10% pay cut and I wasn't in a position to accept, what would happen, legally?

Thanks

fengirl_2

Legally, the company would hold a disciplinary hearing and rule that you had to accept the new contract. You could then appeal, and, assuming they still said you had to accept it, and you still didnt agree, you would be dismissed. A contract has to be capable of amendment or otherwise they would still have to go on paying you at your original rate until they went bust.

Tojo_Ralph

fengirl wrote: »

Legally, the company would hold a disciplinary hearing and rule that you had to accept the new contract. You could then appeal, and, assuming they still said you had to accept it, and you still didnt agree, you would be dismissed. A contract has to be capable of amendment or otherwise they would still have to go on paying you at your original rate until they went bust.

So let me get this right.

An employer wants an employee to take a 5% pay cut.
The employee does not want to or cannot afford to take a 10% pay cut.
The employee refuses to agree to the new contract.
The employee then gets dismssed?

Surely if an employee does not wish to agree to a 10% pay cut the result is redundancy not dismissal?
...

fengirl_2

It would only be redundancy if the job no longer existed. The job exists, but the pay has to be reduced, is not redundnacy.

[Deleted User]

If your employer wants to change your contract they can. They can not back date it, they must give 90 days notice.
They should issue you with a new contract, outlining the changes ie pay.

You sign and give it back, but by not signing does not mean it wont happen.
If you dont sign, but continue to attend work up to and past the 90 days then they and others can 'assume' you have accepted it under law by your actions.

There should also be some consultation before them changing it, but consultation can be as little as letting you all know thats what they intend to do or full on meetings, surveys etc.

You can appeal, better if you do it through a rep or union and with others who also object to give it more clout. Are you amember of a union?

ceridwen

fengirl wrote: »

Legally, the company would hold a disciplinary hearing and rule that you had to accept the new contract. You could then appeal, and, assuming they still said you had to accept it, and you still didnt agree, you would be dismissed. A contract has to be capable of amendment or otherwise they would still have to go on paying you at your original rate until they went bust.

Thats worrying for O.P. if thats the case. What I think needs clarifying now is how - if they did dismiss her - she would be able to make it plain to the D.W.P. that it hadnt been a "personal sacking" IYSWIM - so they treated her exactly the same way as they would treat a person who had been made redundant (ie instant payment of benefit and no disqualification - as it wouldnt be a sacking as the ordinary person in the street understands it ).

She needs to know as well whether she can stay in the job on the other hand and sue them for "breach of contract" (is that possible?)

ceridwen

Another point - I see Fengirls point that the job would still exist - and we all know that a redundancy is because the job doesnt exist any more.

However - the job O.P. took on wouldnt exist any more. The position/duties/etc would still exist - but couldnt it be argued that its a different job to the one O.P. took on - as, even though, there was so much that was substantially the same - the pay wasnt as agreed before therefore it COULDNT be the same job? - therefore it WAS a redundancy after all (even though that position still exists) IYSWIM.

[Deleted User]

ceridwen wrote: »

Thats worrying for O.P. if thats the case. What I think needs clarifying now is how - if they did dismiss her - she would be able to make it plain to the D.W.P. that it hadnt been a "personal sacking" IYSWIM - so they treated her exactly the same way as they would treat a person who had been made redundant (ie instant payment of benefit and no disqualification - as it wouldnt be a sacking as the ordinary person in the street understands it ).

She needs to know as well whether she can stay in the job on the other hand and sue them for "breach of contract" (is that possible?)

If she carries on working in the job at the new terms, even if she did not sign the new contract, she has no right to sue/take tribunial because she has accepted the new terms by going into work. The law allows the assumption of accepting the new TC by carrying on going into work and carrying out the job.

If she chose to not go in to work then she has not accepted but has willingly made herself unemployed. If the employer can prove at tribunial that they handled the change in conditions fairly, consulted, gave 90 days notice, changed it for everyone in the same job and there was valid cause for the reduction then she would not be able to take action.

The only way she could possibly take action is if this was only happening to her and others in the same job/TC were left on the better terms and conditions but that does not appear to be the case.

getmore4less

If you don't want to accept the proposals(check the contract for clauses that may allow some reduction/layoff) then you will need to take action and be prepared to end up out of work.

If you do agree try to get time limits put on and an automatic restoration to old pay levels at some point 6month/year.

Also if they try to impose any cut immediately you may want to consider trying for a protection order.

Make sure that any proposal to reduce wages is rejected properly, not by just not signing any new contract, so you can show that you have not accepted the change by just by turning up.

An official grievence to the proposal would do that and leaves you open to claiming the money back if they don't pay you.

If the company does it anyway, one approach is to put in a grievence for illegal deduction of wages, and then if that is not resolved go to a tribunal . Another option is leave and a constructive dismisal case but best to have tried to follow the company grievence process first.

Definatiely worth seeking some advice from proper sources if you don't want the cut.

Reduced hours are better at least then you can try to find work elsewhere. looks like if they may end up with some people getting higher rates of pay if they take the 10% with a day off rather than the 5% I think that would be unfair they should offer a 1/2 day for 5%.

Any move to a tribunal needs to be considered within 3 months allthough if grievence proceess is in place this may sometimes allow an extention.


Fair dismissals for refusing to take a paycuts are dodgy ground because the company could just cut the wages to min wage and getting that through as fair would be hard.

Tojo_Ralph

So what part of employment law stops an employer using salary cuts to thin out their staff and avoid paying redundancy? Any employer worth their salt will have a good handle on the percentage of their staff that would/would not sign up to a reduced salary.

Scenario - A small company owner has 10 staff, one receptionist and 9 van drivers. He feels he needs to reduce payroll costs by approx 20% but cannot really afford to lose staff.

Assuming salaries are pretty much at the same level across all staff, as I see it the employer has various options, including the following.

a) Make two van drivers redundant and incure all the costs associated with doing so. This leaves the employer with the 20% reduction in his payroll bill, a hefty redundancy bill and short staffed.

b) Reduce salaries by 20% in the certain knowledge that he is going to have two or three drivers refuse the reduced salary and be dismissed. At this point, having not made the positions redundant, the employer can hire new drivers on the reduced salary.

Can an employer introduce a pay reduction across a position rather than across the whole company? ..... ie could the above employer reduce the van drivers salaries without reducing the secretaries salary?

ohreally

_shel wrote: »

they must give 90 days notice.

What reg or acop is this from?