Early contract severed - can they do this?

kelloggs36

My friend has a temporary contract with a well-known retailer. Her contract was until 29 January 2007. However, management have severed all temporary contracts before their end date on the grounds that they have lost money and can't afford to pay them any longer.

As far as she knows, there is nothing in the contract about them being able to end it early - it does say that they can change the hours she is required to work but she is happy for them to do this!

does she have a case to make them either keep her on until the end of the contract or pay her to the end of the contract?

magyar

Clearly if she has a contract that says she is employed until 29 Jan then they have to honour it until that point. However since it says they can change the hours then in theory they could make those hours 1 min per day or something.

Presumably she is paid hourly?

kelloggs36

Yes she is paid hourly and there was no mention of changing or reducing her hours - just sacking her and all other temps. I would not have thought that changing her hours to nil would stand up if challenged?

magyar

I'd tend to agree with you.

Savvy_Sue

ACAS should be able to advise.

Lady_E

My friend who works for Twiggys mob has had her contract cut short and has been forced to use her holiday that they owe her to cover until the end of the contract -so she is finishing a week earlier than she anticipated. She was told it was the needs of the business , and she is by no means happy . I am only guessing here, but I assume it was a temporary contract and that is how they are able to get away with it.

kelloggs36

I thought that a contract was a contract. If a contract was permanent, then she would have been made redundant and been entitled to payment in lieu if she had been there a certain amount of time which is different to a short term contract. That had an end date on it. Now I am sure that Marks and Spencers are not desperately in need of the cash and can afford to pay their temp workers until the end of their contracts but they are choosing not to which is different if they are about to be taken into administration or something where they CAN'T pay their workers. Basically, they admit that they took on the temp staff as an experiment to see if more staff equalled more customers (better service I guess) but whilst it worked in the branch my friend is at, it hasn't paid off overall, so they are getting rid of ALL temp workers.

Thriftylady

Is there anything at all in the contract about giving notice? e.g. if your friend had found a permanent job and had to give the employer one weeks notice or whatever, usually they would do the same in reverse, therefore although the contract said until 29th January there is often a clause in it that also says 'or one weeks notice by either party' (or two weeks, or a month or whatever). I know this is how it worked in the last place I worked in. Its a bit like being on a permanent contract but being made redundant - the fact that you have signed a permanent contract doesn't mean that they can't change their minds at some point in the future.

All the same, I'd be very annoyed if I was your friend, since its only a few weeks and isn't going to be make or break for the company but presumably means a lot to the employee.

magyar

kelloggs36 wrote:

I thought that a contract was a contract. If a contract was permanent, then she would have been made redundant and been entitled to payment in lieu if she had been there a certain amount of time which is different to a short term contract. That had an end date on it. Now I am sure that Marks and Spencers are not desperately in need of the cash and can afford to pay their temp workers until the end of their contracts but they are choosing not to which is different if they are about to be taken into administration or something where they CAN'T pay their workers. Basically, they admit that they took on the temp staff as an experiment to see if more staff equalled more customers (better service I guess) but whilst it worked in the branch my friend is at, it hasn't paid off overall, so they are getting rid of ALL temp workers.

Essentially, I think you're right. From the DTI's web site, they state

"All employees taken on for one month or more are entitled by law to be given, within two months of the date the employment starts, a written statement setting out the main particulars."

and that this statement must contain

"the entitlement of employer and employee to notice of termination;"

I assume that since it was until 29 Jan that it was from before Xmas, so therefore more than a calendar month, therefore by law M&S should have included this in the contract of employment.

However, the fact they didn't doesn't invalidate the contract, it just means that prior to signing, your friend would have had the right to insist it was included. This would therefore seem to me to be a straightforward breach of contract and your friend should be able to claim compensation for loss of earnings.

Of course, to DO this, you'll need to take M&S to court, and although you might win, you'd be up against bigger lawyers than you could afford...

magyar

I also have a recollection that where there is no written details of notice period, then the 'common practice' is that it should be the same period as you get paid, i.e. if you're paid monthly it would be one month's notice, if weekly then one week etc.

This could be a figment of my imagination, though.

Thriftylady

magyar wrote:

I also have a recollection that where there is no written details of notice period, then the 'common practice' is that it should be the same period as you get paid, i.e. if you're paid monthly it would be one month's notice, if weekly then one week etc.

This could be a figment of my imagination, though.

I've heard this too. But, like you, I'm not sure if it has any legal basis, or if its just what you might call 'the polite thing to do'....