Can they do this ?

chipmunk

In a nutshell, my husband was recently told that he would have to re-apply for his own job, the job he's been doing for over 6 years and doing it well. The company said they were "re-structuring", no redundancies. In each department there was a day job (his) and a night job.

He had the interview and was told he would find out in a few days if he had been successful. Anyway he didn't get "his" job, he was offered the night job with a £5,000 p.a. pay cut ! "His" job was given to the person who previously had the night job. He's extremely upset but has really had no option but to take the job offered otherwise he's out of work. It sounds a bit dodgy to me. Can an employer do something like this ?

getmore4less

They have done it and he has accepted it if he is now doing the job.

When did this happen?

It might too late or difficult to resolve it has been too long.

chipmunk

Thanks for your reply. He was told on Wednesday that he had not got his own job and they offered him the other one, he accepted the job yesterday but made it clear that not happy about it but felt he had no choice but to accept as he needs a job.

getmore4less

if he wants to keep a job then it may be difficult finding a workable solution.
Even if he could get the change undone what would the working relationship be like going forward.


Consider a written working under protest letter probably by Mon at the latest Or maybe insist in a formal change of contract which required notice so old pay for the full notice period(min 6 weeks).

I think this would need a more expert opinion if you want to look at the options better posting over at

http://www.redundancyforum.co.uk/

AndyBSG

I'm pretty sure they can't get away with what they've done.

First of all, did they follow the correct redundancy procedures? i.e, was he put 'at risk', was there a selection process, etc.

If so, is his old job actually gone and does it no longer exist? the fact someone else is now doing his job it would appear not.

It seems like all that has happened is they've engineered this process to simply swap the two jobs around.

PHILANTHROPIST

AndyBSG wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they can't get away with what they've done.

First of all, did they follow the correct redundancy procedures? i.e, was he put 'at risk', was there a selection process, etc.

If so, is his old job actually gone and does it no longer exist? the fact someone else is now doing his job it would appear not.

It seems like all that has happened is they've engineered this process to simply swap the two jobs around.

So long as it is not a criminal act employers can (sadly) within reason do whatever they want. Whether their actions are lawful or fair is in the extreme a matter for a judge to determine.

What the OP is describing is a scenario that is becoming increasingly common employer practice and is seen as being a more effective means of rationalising the workforce and it may potentially be justified on the grounds of a business purpose/ reason.

The rules are fairly complex and will take too long to go through in an open forum. One important question would appear to be - how many staff were affected by such T&C changes etc in your establishment / specific place of work or department ? How many years of service do you have ?

Regardless, I would urge the OP to contact ACAS ; they are (or should be) well up to speed on such matters. Their number is 08457 47 47 47, or if you prefer I have their landline # - 0115 900 2670. Open 8am to 8 pm Mon to Fri and on a Saturday morning.

Let us know what they say.

Statement re working under dispute is an option, but I'd only do so if it appears that your employer has acted unfairly. If so, you need to raise both a grievance (try informal first). Fact you have started new "role" in past week or so is in all likelihood too short a timeframe for you to have made an "implied" acceptance of your new position /T&C's etc. A period of one to two months is more likely to be the norm for such an implied acceptance.

LittleVoice

AndyBSG wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they can't get away with what they've done.

First of all, did they follow the correct redundancy procedures? i.e, was he put 'at risk', was there a selection process, etc.

If so, is his old job actually gone and does it no longer exist? the fact someone else is now doing his job it would appear not.

It seems like all that has happened is they've engineered this process to simply swap the two jobs around.

Why would they need to follow any kind of redundancy procedure when they have, quite correctly it seems, said there is no redundancy?

FBaby

What was the point of interviewing then if not following any processes internal or external. They might as well as said that the other person wanted the day job or they wouldgo and because they value that person more they just went ahead with the swap!

spacey2012

He should have really sought advice earlier, it was pretty obvious what was blowing in on the wind.
Once he has signed a new contract, the old one is no longer.

PHILANTHROPIST

spacey2012 wrote: »

He should have really sought advice earlier, it was pretty obvious what was blowing in on the wind.
Once he has signed a new contract, the old one is no longer.

Spacey - are you a lawyer ? ; are you an employment judge?

As per my post the OP should speak to ACAS. Signing a contract can be a negative (if that is what has occurred), but as it was a recent event then it may be corrected so long as there has been evidence of an unlawful or unfair act and/or procedure.

OP - call ACAS's free and confidential service. Insufficient detail provided at this stage to deal with in on here.

chipmunk

AndyBSG wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they can't get away with what they've done.

First of all, did they follow the correct redundancy procedures? i.e, was he put 'at risk', was there a selection process, etc.

If so, is his old job actually gone and does it no longer exist? the fact someone else is now doing his job it would appear not.

It seems like all that has happened is they've engineered this process to simply swap the two jobs around.

There are no redundancies, the company said they were "re-structuring". His job still exists, they've given it to someone else; in simplistic terms they've demoted him to a lower salary scale (although they have agreed to keep paying his current salary for 6 months but he will then be given a pay cut. Your last paragraph is what we suspect was the true reason.