Can they do this ?

gadjah543

I have heard rumours through the jungle drums that my company are re-organising and this will mean re-deployment for some managers.I don't know whether this will affect me yet but want to be prepared.

The last time this happened I know of one Manager who was on a 39 hour contract who was offered a 28 hour contract as a suitable alternative.Her hourly rate of pay was the same but her salary was cut considerably.

When she refused she was told by the company that if she didn't accept she wouldn't be entitled to redundancy pay as she had rejected a position that was deemed suitable. Is this advice correct?

SarEl

No. And that is too short so I have to write something longer!

SarEl

I should clarify that. They could refuse to pay up. They would loose at tribunal.

gadjah543

Thanks for this,that is what I thought. I think that they do this based on people being too scared to test them , personally I would take a gamble and leave but hope it doesn't come to that.

unholyangel

If everyone were undergoing the same cuts then they could say it is reasonable. Its not an automatic redundancy situation unless you are losing 50% or more of your hours.

Tbh a lot of it depends on what her contract says. Technically her employer can change her contract without her consent but this could be seen as a breach of contract - especially if it goes to the heart of her contract (ie duties, hours of work, pay etc) and any money not paid would be a unlawful deduction of wages.

If they do go ahead with the change without her permission, she basically has 3 choices. To accept the change, to continue working but under protest (and making her protest known in writing every few weeks) or to consider the contract as terminated.

However, if she does walk out, this is harder to prove and she would be wise to consult a lawyer before doing so. I am speaking from personal experience and not professional knowledge. My ex-employer was reducing my hours from 35 to 14 but claimed it wasnt a redundancy situation as they were temporarily offering me 28 hours due to others being on holiday/off sick - even though it was only temporary for 2 weeks. After 6 weeks of banging my head against a brick wall (both myself, CAB, ACAS and my lawyer telling them what they were doing was illegal - especially as the changes were not being applied to all staff members) and one of them trying to bully me into accepting, i had enough and couldnt take anymore. They're claiming breach of contract on my part, obviously from my point of view the contract was already at an end due to their actions.

Basically what i'm saying is make sure she has her back covered before taking serious action like walking out.

LittleVoice

unholyangel wrote: »

If everyone were undergoing the same cuts then they could say it is reasonable. Its not an automatic redundancy situation unless you are losing 50% or more of your hours.

Tbh a lot of it depends on what her contract says. Technically her employer can change her contract without her consent but this could be seen as a breach of contract - especially if it goes to the heart of her contract (ie duties, hours of work, pay etc) and any money not paid would be a unlawful deduction of wages.

If they do go ahead with the change without her permission, she basically has 3 choices. To accept the change, to continue working but under protest (and making her protest known in writing every few weeks) or to consider the contract as terminated.

However, if she does walk out, this is harder to prove and she would be wise to consult a lawyer before doing so. I am speaking from personal experience and not professional knowledge. My ex-employer was reducing my hours from 35 to 14 but claimed it wasnt a redundancy situation as they were temporarily offering me 28 hours due to others being on holiday/off sick - even though it was only temporary for 2 weeks. After 6 weeks of banging my head against a brick wall (both myself, CAB, ACAS and my lawyer telling them what they were doing was illegal - especially as the changes were not being applied to all staff members) and one of them trying to bully me into accepting, i had enough and couldnt take anymore. They're claiming breach of contract on my part, obviously from my point of view the contract was already at an end due to their actions.

Basically what i'm saying is make sure she has her back covered before taking serious action like walking out.

I don't think you will find support for the 50% suggestion at the start of your post.

It's not about an individual's hours - it's about the requirement for work of a particular kind. And that work (100% of it) can be reassigned to someone else but the person currently doing that work could be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

unholyangel

LittleVoice wrote: »

I don't think you will find support for the 50% suggestion at the start of your post.

It's not about an individual's hours - it's about the requirement for work of a particular kind. And that work (100% of it) can be reassigned to someone else but the person currently doing that work could be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

The 50% thing i was told by CAB, ACAS and by 2 of my own lawyers who specialise in employment law. According to them, 50% or more is - in the eyes of employment law - a redundancy situation with no room for debate.

As for the "same for everyone" i was referring to cut hours/change of shift patterns. In my case i was losing 21 hours, one other employee was losing 4 hours and the remaining 8 were losing no hours - one of them was actually gaining hours. Again, CAB, ACAS and 2 lawyers told me this was illegal and unfair.

LittleVoice

unholyangel wrote: »

The 50% thing i was told by CAB, ACAS and by 2 of my own lawyers who specialise in employment law. According to them, 50% or more is - in the eyes of employment law - a redundancy situation with no room for debate.

As for the "same for everyone" i was referring to cut hours/change of shift patterns. In my case i was losing 21 hours, one other employee was losing 4 hours and the remaining 8 were losing no hours - one of them was actually gaining hours. Again, CAB, ACAS and 2 lawyers told me this was illegal and unfair.

I'm looking at the "automatic" nature kicking in at 50%. I assume they would have agreed there can be a redundancy situation if 25% less work is required.

As a way of avoiding redundancy, and if the employees agree, there is no reason why employees could not agree to a 70% cut in their hours.

And of course, it would not be unfair for two of four workers to be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy and for the others to retain all their hours.

SarEl

unholyangel wrote: »

The 50% thing i was told by CAB, ACAS and by 2 of my own lawyers who specialise in employment law. According to them, 50% or more is - in the eyes of employment law - a redundancy situation with no room for debate.

As for the "same for everyone" i was referring to cut hours/change of shift patterns. In my case i was losing 21 hours, one other employee was losing 4 hours and the remaining 8 were losing no hours - one of them was actually gaining hours. Again, CAB, ACAS and 2 lawyers told me this was illegal and unfair.

In that case CAB, ACAS and two of your specilaist employment lawyers are wrong. It is not reasonable whether or not everyone else is taking the same cut. Tribunals determine what is reasonable and unreasonable on an individual basis, and they always consdier a substantial cut in hours as reasonable. One or two hours would be a grey area - but still arguable depending on circumstances. But there is no way in any shape or form that anyone who knows what they are actually talking about would quote 50% or 30% or even 20%.

And that is the opinion of an employment law barrister who has argued at the EAT, Appeal Court, High Court and European Court. And I will stake my professional reputation on that as legal opinion. I suggest you get better lawyers.

unholyangel

SarEl wrote: »

In that case CAB, ACAS and two of your specilaist employment lawyers are wrong. It is not reasonable whether or not everyone else is taking the same cut. Tribunals determine what is reasonable and unreasonable on an individual basis, and they always consdier a substantial cut in hours as reasonable. One or two hours would be a grey area - but still arguable depending on circumstances. But there is no way in any shape or form that anyone who knows what they are actually talking about would quote 50% or 30% or even 20%.

And that is the opinion of an employment law barrister who has argued at the EAT, Appeal Court, High Court and European Court. And I will stake my professional reputation on that as legal opinion. I suggest you get better lawyers.

The cut across the board has (in my case at least) nothing to do with the 50%. Likewise, my work were not making redundancies. They originally offered me redundancy and then when i accepted, they backtracked and said they were never offering it. Neither am i saying that someone could not accept reduced hours as opposed to redundancy. I am saying that i have been told that over 50% consitutes a definite redundancy situation that the employer cannot deny (which is what my employer did and they also refused to cut or change anyone elses hours so that no one person suffered a substantial loss), not that the employee cant agree to the alternative.

As for them being wrong, no offense but i've seen their creditials, i havent seen yours.....for all i know you've never had a job in your life and left school at 12 with no further training (anyone can talk a good game online) and they belong to the 2 most prestigious law firms in this area that i do have personal knowledge of their reputations of at least the past 12 years. Tbh i think you're either misreading what i've said or perhaps mistyping what you meant. You are saying tribunals always find a substantial cut in hours reasonable? LOL

As in law, both parties must have acted reasonably. Of course, what is reasonable is left open to interpretation. As a "reasonable" person, i would say it is not reasonble to cut one persons hours by 60% with no reduction to anyone elses hours - who do the exact same job - when those cuts could be spread out among all employee's equally in order to save jobs.

Oh and no, i didnt have a contract so theres no clause allowing them to vary my hours of work or pay. I'm not someone with a grudge, i just want what i feel is owed to me after being a good employee.

However i am also aware that my own circumstances are complex. And this thread really isnt about my position So lets get back on track shall we?

SarEl

You were porrly advised.

unholyangel wrote: »

The cut across the board has (in my case at least) nothing to do with the 50%. There is no 50% - or 30% - or 20%. You are talking about lay-offs - the OP did not ask about lay-offs. The OP asked whether, when at risk, a position with fewer hours is a suitable alternative vacancy - it is not.

Likewise, my work were not making redundancies. They originally offered me redundancy and then when i accepted, they backtracked and said they were never offering it. A reduction in hours can only be temporary, must be agreed, and must have a review period on it. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal. Where there is a collective agreement then the cut in hours on this basis can be imposed but only under these conditions. And since this constitutes a form of lay-off, you can claim redundancy after a set period if the lay-of is more than 50%. So it isn't a case of it being "in your case" - it is a totally differnt case altogether - different laws entirely.

Neither am i saying that someone could not accept reduced hours as opposed to redundancy. I didn't say they couldn't - I said that the employer could not impose such a cut as a suitable alternative position. I am saying that i have been told that over 50% consitutes a definite redundancy situation that the employer cannot deny (which is what my employer did and they also refused to cut or change anyone elses hours so that no one person suffered a substantial loss), not that the employee cant agree to the alternative. No - totally different as I have explained. The OP asked about suitable alternative positions - you are talking about lay-offs. And in a lay-off you must have less than 50% of your hours over a four week period, or 6 weeks in a 13 weeks period.

As for them being wrong, no offense but i've seen their creditials, i havent seen yours.....for all i know you've never had a job in your life and left school at 12 with no further training (anyone can talk a good game online) and they belong to the 2 most prestigious law firms in this area that i do have personal knowledge of their reputations of at least the past 12 years. Tbh i think you're either misreading what i've said or perhaps mistyping what you meant. You are saying tribunals always find a substantial cut in hours reasonable? LOL I have not mistyped anything - you have totally misunderstood the question the OP asked and given incorrect advice based on a totally different situation and different law. And I know this because I do know the law - and I own one of the most prestigious chambers in the country. True enough, you don't know that - but I invite you to take this post to your local law firm and ask them who is correct - I know it is me!

As in law, both parties must have acted reasonably. Of course, what is reasonable is left open to interpretation. As a "reasonable" person, i would say it is not reasonble to cut one persons hours by 60% with no reduction to anyone elses hours - who do the exact same job - when those cuts could be spread out among all employee's equally in order to save jobs. I never commented on whether what happened to you was fair - I answered the OP's question.

Oh and no, i didnt have a contract so theres no clause allowing them to vary my hours of work or pay. I'm not someone with a grudge, i just want what i feel is owed to me after being a good employee.

However i am also aware that my own circumstances are complex. And this thread really isnt about my position So lets get back on track shall we?

Your circumstances are not complex - they are in fact very straightforward. But we were always "on track" - I was correcting the misleading advice that you were giving the OP. That is "on track"