Told to do night shifts when not contracted to

zzzLazyDaisy

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Tell them to do 1, in a professional way.

Sorry, but I wouldn't take employment advice from someone who has had as many disciplinaries and fallings out with an employer as you have!

OP, look carefully at your contract...

Most properly drafted contracts will state your hours of work, but will also contain a clause saying something like 'but you are required to work additional hours should the needs of the business require'

Also, you have said your bonus is contractual - this is very unusual, most bonus schemes state that the bonus is in the discretion of the employer, so you should check the rules of the bonus scheme and/or your employee handbook carefully. Even just the word 'may' instead of 'will' can make a huge difference to the legalities

Many contracts also state that changes may be made upon the giving of contractual notice, so you need to check that too.

BUT, you also need to know that if they force these changes through, and you continue to work under your contract, you will be deemed by your conduct to have accepted the changes.

So in real practical terms, whatever your contract says, the employer can make changes and you will have difficulty challenging them if the employer is determined. So you should approach this problem in a spirit of negotiation, rather than 'I know my rights'.

tonyh66

you need to go through your contract with a fine tooth comb to see if they have stuck the reasonable hours at discretion of the company clause in. Also im pretty sure if your present contract states mon-fri they can't just flip it to wed-sun.
Look for other jobs and leave them in the sh*t with their new contract, they sound like a terrible company to work for.

FBaby

I can't believe the responses you have received OP. Is this what it has come down to? What the recession is doing to workers? Treating them like heartless resources in the same way they treat their machinery? It's ironic to read the responses here, next to the weekly increasing threads about people wanting to receive benefits due to stress and anxiety...there are no more inbetweens it would seem...

miduck wrote: »

I would have no problem working a few nights if it helped the business. After all, who is going to be the one that looks good when it comes to promotion/ bonus time - the one that is willing to be flexible, or you with your "work to rule" attitude?

Glad if you would have no problems, but maybe you don't have the life that others lead. I know for a fact that I wouldn't be able to do 2-8am shifts and it certainly wouldn't help the business to ask me to do so because there is no way I would be able to show any efficiency. I am so knackered as it is with a my day job, I struggle to stay asleep after 9pm. There is no way I could make it to 2am, nor would I be able to go to sleep from 8pm to 1am... Also, I have children and a partner whose industry means he has to leave work at 7am. No-one to look after children...

The reality is that if such a shift has little implication for some people, it can be massive for others, and that is why there are contracts that means a company can't do whatever they want as it suits them without any consideration for their employees.

As for the promotion chances associated to flexibility...ha ha, if only it worked like that...

zzzLazyDaisy

FBaby wrote: »

I have children and a partner whose industry means he has to leave work at 7am.

While I accept what you are saying in a general sense, if we wish to to help OP, we have to keep the comments to his specific situation.

In the situation that you describe, you would have a good case to argue with the employer and may have protection under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances. But OP has not suggested that this is the case at all.

He (understandably) does not WANT to work these new hours. The question is, will the law support him against the employer if he refuses and ends up losing his bonus, or facing other sanctions? Many employers are operating in difficult economic conditions, especially small businesses. They often have to make unpopular business decisions in order to keep work coming in. Employment tribunals do not have the power to comment on or change business decisions by the employer. What this means in practice is that the tribunal (if it got that far) would be looking at every word in the contract and employment conditions, as well as at the general law, to decide whether the employer acted unlawfully. On the information we have at the moment, I would back the employer if it got that far.

HurdyGurdy

I haven't understood yet whether the OP is being asked to work "a few days" as a one off, to maybe get a system in place, or "a few days" a week on a permanent basis.

It's a difficult one. In response to FBaby's question of "is this what the recession has done to workers", the answer seems to be yes. My husband's employer has introduced all kinds of changes to their working systems and although the employees generally mutter under their breath about the unfairness, and the lack of remuneration for the changes etc, no one is "brave" enough to argue the case (none of them are in a union, unfortunately), for fear of finding themselves unemployed.

Anarchist

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

While I accept what you are saying in a general sense, if we wish to to help OP, we have to keep the comments to his specific situation.

In the situation that you describe, you would have a good case to argue with the employer and may have protection under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances. But OP has not suggested that this is the case at all.

He (understandably) does not WANT to work these new hours. The question is, will the law support him against the employer if he refuses and ends up losing his bonus, or facing other sanctions? Many employers are operating in difficult economic conditions, especially small businesses. They often have to make unpopular business decisions in order to keep work coming in. Employment tribunals do not have the power to comment on or change business decisions by the employer. What this means in practice is that the tribunal (if it got that far) would be looking at every word in the contract and employment conditions, as well as at the general law, to decide whether the employer acted unlawfully. On the information we have at the moment, I would back the employer if it got that far.

Hi lazydaisy,

I have two children, and I also have disabled family that I am responsible for. Sorry for keeping details vague, but I am never a fan of posting too many personally identifiable details online.

The business is profitable, and have employed several new staff this year. However, the last time they had to replace my junior engineer, it took them five months of advertising to find somebody, and the only reason they managed to fill it then was because they retrained somebody else who applied internally as they could not find anybody else.

zzzLazyDaisy

HurdyGurdy wrote: »

no one is "brave" enough to argue the case (none of them are in a union, unfortunately), for fear of finding themselves unemployed.

And that is the bottom line.

Unless the employee is willing to risk losing their job and taking the employer to tribunal, the truth is that s/he has few rights.

Most people will work a couple of shifts rather than risk their job, especially if they have a family to support. Unfortunately, if they refuse, the law gives them few rights or protections unless or until they lose their job (unlawful discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages aside). So even if OP's employer does not have the legal right to change his hours under any circumstances (which is not very likely) what is OP going to do? Refuse to work the night shifts and possibly face a disciplinary and/or losing his bonus? Come in on his normal days and be turned away? Resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis of the employer's breach of contract and accept that only around 3% of such claims actually succeed?

Sorry, but these are the hard facts of life.

anamenottaken

Anarchist wrote: »

It is additional, extra work. The company will be earning an extra additional £x00,000 for servicing it than what they were doing before.. Why would you presume it was to replace lost work, when I mentioned nothing of the sort? Other than to try and reinforce an invalid arguement with even more invalid points?

I wasn't replying too you. I didn't quote you.

You hadn't said it was additional work for the company, just that it had secured the contract.

I didn't presume it was to replace lost work. From what you said (hadn't said), it could have been. Companies do lose contracts and do get new ones which allow them to keep employees on the payroll.

I was trying to make the point that if you assume that a new contract means more money for the employees when they are not being asked to do extra work, then losing one would suggest that they should be paid less even if the individual is not doing less.