Unfair working relations

chriszzz

Hi,

This is more of a rant than advice, so I do apologize if I go on a bit.
I have been working for an organization for 8yrs, providing support to 4 men in their own homes. The organization is funded by the local council to deliver 24/7 support, including sleep in duty which starts at 10pm until 7am, staff don't finish until 10am, the hours between 10pm-7am are at a fixed rate, which is not in line with the minimum wage, 7am-10am is paid at the basic hourly rate.

The organization have told staff 4 weeks before they implement the change, that the local council has asked the organization to move the sleep in hours to 10pm-8am, at no increase in sleep-in rate, this will cause staff to loose an hours basic rate and now will have to make up that shortfall throughout the working week, so if you have to do 2 sleep-ins then you will have to make up 2 hrs.

I work with 6 other staff who all work in a building that has been converted into 4 flats with a guest room where staff sleep. We have put in a grievance about the proposed plans and was sent to the relevant body in July this year, as it stands today we have never received a reply to the letter.

Only one of the staff is in the union, he spoke to the union rep who works in the organization and explained that we sent a letter of grievance, she told him that she could find out if they are going to reply to the letter and would need to use his name and that it would be on his head, of course this refrained him from going ahead with it and would not then give her permission to use his name.

I did get in touch with the local council, explained the situation and asked them why they have asked the organization to move the sleep-in hours, they told me that they would not state how the organization use their hours, that was done by phone call...so no evidence other than hearsay, so I emailed them, they replied basically saying that they would need the organizations name so that they could investigate it......I did not want to do anymore until I spoke with other staff but because my colleague was not prepared to use his name, we have had to let it go.

I really felt deflated by this, as the staff was not happy with the proposal and asked me to put a letter together, which I did in my time and got my information from Acas, employment law and the local council.

I can not believe that organizations can get away with doing whatever they want and treat their staff like they have no meaning or not important enough...really grates on me.

As Acas have said they can change anything in your contract at any time....why blddy have one then....maybe a contract should just say...we can do, change, whatever we feel like as we have great control over you!!

Rant over....I do apologize.

SarEl

If you don't mind me intervening in your rant? Because you have certainly been misinformed about some things here, and quite possibly about a lot more.

The Council cannot change - or even suggest changes to - your terms and conditions of employment, and I do not believe that they have done so for one minute. Your employer is commissioned by the Council to deliver a service. Provided that the service meets the specification laid out in the comissioning documents, the Council do not care what you are paid (provided it is legal!), when you work, or anything else. They have no interest in your employment at all. So if there has been any change, it has been to the commissioning contract - not to your terms of employment. How your employer achieves the service required is wholly and toally up to them. I would suggest that your employer is telling you little white lies about the Council in rder to deflect the blame from themselves.

So the equation here is actually very simple. The Council may or may not have changed the commissioned contract, but that is nothing to do with you and has no bearing on your conditions of employment. That is a matter between the Council and their contractor (your employer). The contractor either meets the specifications or they loose the contract. Within that contract the only reference to employment of staff is likely to be a requirement to comply with certain legal requirements. But the relationship between the Council and your employer is purely contractual, in the same way that your relationship with the guy fitting your kitchen is. You specify the units, the colours, the worktops the kind of sink you want etc to his employers, and his employers tell him when to turn up, when to knock off, what his priorities are, and what he will be paid. If you decide half way through the job that the worktop you sleceted just doesn't suit the base units - you talk to his bosses not him, abut the changes you want. Does that make sense? So the people you need to be talking to are your employers because they are the ones making the decisions here. They simply have to fulfill the councils specification - how they do it is their choice.

It is also not true that an employer can simply vary contracts as they want, and if ACAS told you that, they are (as they often are) wrong. An employer cannot ever vary a contract without your agreement. They must consult with you , and if you cannot reach a mutual agreement they have the ability to enforce the change. They must do this, if you have not agreed to the change, by terminating your existing contract and the offering you a new one to run continuously from the old one. You are entitled to refuse the new contract. Nobody can force you to accept and nobody can make you accept conditions which you do not agree to. The problem is that you are then out of work!

If you refuse the change then you may be able to claim unfair dismissal. Tht does not mean you would win such a claim, and minor amendments or changes where the majority of the workforce have agreed to them are unlikely to win.

But it would appear that your employers are being disingenuous - they are changing the contract of employment, and nobody but them can do so. It may be that to continue to hold the contract they must make some changes to the way they fulfill the contract - but as I said, how they do that is up to them

chriszzz

Hi SarE,

Thanks for the information, I take it that you know or are clued up on this sort of thing!

Our contract states 9hr sleep-in, but the company are changing it to 10 hrs which is very crafty as we loose an hours basic rate and the sleep-in stays at the fixed rate, they did not wait for staff to agree they just stated that they were implementing the change on the 6th september, the union rep has been approached and she said that the company/organization has said the local council have asked for the change in sleep-in hours.

Why would the company state the the local council have asked for the sleep-in hours change from 9 to 10hrs for less pay?

Now I personally think they are pulling a fast one and that is why I phoned the council, who say that they would not state the working hours, It really is just a case of pinching from the staff, there has been no negotiation with the staff who would of liked to have finished their shift at 9am instead of 10am, they are basically getting more out of the staff for less pay.

Am really peed off the way in which they have done it, no consultation with staff and no answer to the grievance we sent in....how to make your staff happy!!

At the end of the day, the information I have gathered is really that the company can basically get away with even trying to say the hours are being dictated by the local council because no one is strong enough to take them on.

Sorry if I sound like a hard done by person...its not like that, its the way people get treated in this supposedly civil society we live in...just hate that you can be treated this way.

SarEl

chriszzz wrote: »

Hi SarE,

Thanks for the information, I take it that you know or are clued up on this sort of thing!

Our contract states 9hr sleep-in, but the company are changing it to 10 hrs which is very crafty as we loose an hours basic rate and the sleep-in stays at the fixed rate, they did not wait for staff to agree they just stated that they were implementing the change on the 6th september, the union rep has been approached and she said that the company/organization has said the local council have asked for the change in sleep-in hours.

Why would the company state the the local council have asked for the sleep-in hours change from 9 to 10hrs for less pay?

Now I personally think they are pulling a fast one and that is why I phoned the council, who say that they would not state the working hours, It really is just a case of pinching from the staff, there has been no negotiation with the staff who would of liked to have finished their shift at 9am instead of 10am, they are basically getting more out of the staff for less pay.

Am really peed off the way in which they have done it, no consultation with staff and no answer to the grievance we sent in....how to make your staff happy!!

At the end of the day, the information I have gathered is really that the company can basically get away with even trying to say the hours are being dictated by the local council because no one is strong enough to take them on.

Sorry if I sound like a hard done by person...its not like that, its the way people get treated in this supposedly civil society we live in...just hate that you can be treated this way.

You could safely assume that I know a thing ot two about these things - I am an employment law barrister and some 60% of my clients are public sector staff, so I know how they manage contracts inside out. A Council would never dictate terms like this - they might do it to their own staff, mind, but they wouldn't tell someone else to do it!

But if you hate the way that employers can get away with this sort of thing, then the answer is obvious. Join a union and do something about it. Employers get away with tings because they have unorganised workforces that allow them to. I cannot for one second blame the sole union member for being unwilling to put their head over the parapet for everyone else. Strength lies in numbers!

chriszzz

SarEl wrote: »

You could safely assume that I know a thing ot two about these things - I am an employment law barrister and some 60% of my clients are public sector staff, so I know how they manage contracts inside out. A Council would never dictate terms like this - they might do it to their own staff, mind, but they wouldn't tell someone else to do it!

But if you hate the way that employers can get away with this sort of thing, then the answer is obvious. Join a union and do something about it. Employers get away with tings because they have unorganised workforces that allow them to. I cannot for one second blame the sole union member for being unwilling to put their head over the parapet for everyone else. Strength lies in numbers!

I thought about joining a union but if people are too scared to stand for their rights then I see it as a waste of money and as strength lies in numbers, that would mean that we would have to contact other staff teams in different houses/locations and would that not then be looked upon as being a troublemaker?

I also would of thought that the union reps are there to speak on behalf of the staff and not use just one member of the union and put his name forward..should they not be doing more than they have, the way it appears is that the union are accepting it and told the union member that we don't have a leg to stand on and that's the end of that.

Am a little more fiery, in a respectful way, even if I did join a union, it would be too late to act on the proposed plan for the 6th September.

I think what really gets to me is that they have blamed the council for the change of hours and actually typed it on a health and safety risk assessment for staff to fill in, for the safety of any of the men who we support and may need support before the proposed time of 8am, this is what it actually says:(removing names for confidentiality)

*The local council have asked that the current Sleep-in be extended from 10pm-8am. This would mean that staff would only provide on-call support and no direct support until after 8am.

Are they allowed to use the council when actually the council would not state working hours I mean how bad is that to be putting something together like that under false pretenses..thing is they think were all stupid!

chriszzz

SarEl,

"Thank you" for giving me your time and knowledge...I think for future reference, maybe the way forward is to join a union.

We work 24/7 52 weeks...I think a little respect from the employer would go down nicely, we havent had a payrise for 2 yrs and now they want to take that bit more from us...well think its time to move on, probably needed something like this to wake me up, its just that you do get attached to the men you support and you stay for them....sometimes it has to be about you.

Chriszzz

SarEl

chriszzz wrote: »

I thought about joining a union but if people are too scared to stand for their rights then I see it as a waste of money and as strength lies in numbers, that would mean that we would have to contact other staff teams in different houses/locations and would that not then be looked upon as being a troublemaker? Well, it's either that or have no protection at all.

I also would of thought that the union reps are there to speak on behalf of the staff and not use just one member of the union and put his name forward..Why should they speak on behalf of people who are not members of their union. That is ridiculous. Union memberes apy their dues to be represented if they want it, not for the union to represent people who haven't paid their dues. should they not be doing more than they have, the way it appears is that the union are accepting it and told the union member that we don't have a leg to stand on and that's the end of that. What else can they do. No union member wants to pursue this. Unions are collectives - their ability to influence employers and to challenge them is bassed on strength of numbers, not just the law.

Am a little more fiery, in a respectful way, even if I did join a union, it would be too late to act on the proposed plan for the 6th September. Possibly - but it wouldn't be too late to do something about the next thing they do.

I think what really gets to me is that they have blamed the council for the change of hours and actually typed it on a health and safety risk assessment for staff to fill in, for the safety of any of the men who we support and may need support before the proposed time of 8am, this is what it actually says:(removing names for confidentiality)

*The local council have asked that the current Sleep-in be extended from 10pm-8am. This would mean that staff would only provide on-call support and no direct support until after 8am.

Are they allowed to use the council when actually the council would not state working hours I mean how bad is that to be putting something together like that under false pretenses..thing is they think were all stupid! They can say what they want - it doesn't make it true! Mind you, since Councils are now responsible for the state of the economy and the deficit, I don't see why your employers shouldn't jump on the bandwagon. They are hardly the first there!

I think you misunderstand what a union is. Many of the things that eployers do are legal, but that does not make them right. Whether the employer can be prevented from doing these things does not depend upon the law. It depends upon the ability of the union to say "there will be consequences if you do this". Those consequences, because the law is not being broken, must be that the union members will do something that the employer would really prefer that they don't. The union cannot do this if their entire one member, unsurprisingly, isn't willing or able to take on the employer on behalf of everyone else who isn't even a union member, and those other people plan to do nothing but complain about it and then go along with it. This is the purpose and meaning of "collective bargaining" - and it requires both a "collective" and a willingness to take, if necessary "collective action".

By blaming the union. of which you are not even a member, for being unable to stop the employer doing something which is perfectly legal, you are actually doing exactly what the employer has done - blaming someone else for what they are doing themselves. You are under no obligation to accept the change in conditions. You can refuse. You will then be offered another cotract with the new conditions in them, and if you refuse it you will be deemed to have resigned your post. You can then take out a claim of unfair dismissal, but the chances are that you would loose. I fully realise that that may not be an option for you because you want to keep your job - at least until you find another one. But this is your choice, just as much as it is the employers choice to change your contracts. Neither the union nor the Council are responsible for the choices made.

It is still your choice whether or not you join a union, but you cannot blame them for their inability to have clout with employers when most of the wrokesr don't want to be a part of it, or to stand up for themselves. Sorry, but that's the bottom line. Things have not changed so much since Tolpuddle - we just have no transportation and better suits.

chriszzz

I can see your point about how unions work and obviously there is not enough union members for the union to challenge the employers.

I can see you point about not accepting a new contract I agree with what your saying about not stand a chance in the nature of the dismissal and I have an option to move to new employment and join a union, both them options are open to me and am sure I will move on.