Company want to change contract?

TBagpuss

The employer cannot unilaterally change the contract. However, you do need to read your contract and any employee handbook as it may contacin flexibility clauses (in other words, you may have already agreed, within you contract, to some types of change)

If the additional payment is a dioscretionary bonus then on the face of it , you would not be entitled to it as it is paid at the discretion of the employer. However, if there is any formal arrangement it may be contractual so again, check you contract and any prevvious writen informnation you have been given about the bonus scheme.

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/q/k/Varying-a-contract-of-employment-Acas-leaflet.pdf

sangie595

Gavin83 wrote: »

Then what would be the point of contracts in the first place? If what you said was true redundancy also wouldn't exist. All a company would have to do it take a group of employees all earning £80k a year, knock their salaries down to minimum wage all doing 16 hours a week and if they don't like it they'll be seen as resigning. Doesn't work.

I think it depends on what is being changed (minor changes I'd imagine are ok) but I know several people who have had major revisions, pay reductions, relocations, etc and the company has certainly had to offer redundancy as part of the changes. The OP hasn't specified this.

What I have said is true. And since redundancy does not exist (it is a dismissal - redundancy is a reason, not an action) your argument is spurious. The fact is that an employer can enforce a change of contract, simply by serving notice on the existing contract and offering the new one. If the employee does not accept the change, then in law it is deemed a resignation. However, it then is possible to claim it as unfair dismissal - as I keep saying, a rare exception to the normal laws of unfairness. A tribunal would then determine whether the circumstance was unfair or not.

When there are significant changes then a wise employer does offer redundancy as an option. There is no legal requirement to do this however. That is the employers choice. And refusing even a significant change of contract is not something to do without either (a) being willing to take risks and (b) without good advice. Over the latter part of the last debate tribunals have routinely ruled that cuts in pay, as much as 10% or more, are "fair" and that the claimants have not been unfairly dismissed.

Just because you think something "doesn't work" doesn't mean it doesn't, or that it doesn't exist. The legal position on refusal to change a contract is very clear, and there are set procedures for an employer to follow. The employer is not dismissing someone if they are offering them another contract. It is the persons choice not to accept that contract. Therefore it is a resignation (the employees choice). You don't dismiss contracts, you dismiss people. And the employee is refusing to accept the offered contract. That does not constitute a dismissal. However, it certainly may be unfair in law, and that is why the law exists as it does - to prevent excesses. However, what the law may deem excessive and what you think is excessive are not the same thing, and as I said, tribunals have been routinely accepting significant cuts in pay or terms as fair where the employer has argued that the alternative will result in job losses. Tribunals have considered that refusing to change your terms when the alternative is no job is not a reasonable action on the part of employees. I don't happen to agree with this, but they don't need my approval to do it.

SeduLOUs

sangie595 wrote: »

The fact is that an employer can enforce a change of contract, simply by serving notice on the existing contract and offering the new one. If the employee does not accept the change, then in law it is deemed a resignation.

It isn't a resignation. By terminating the contract you have dismissed the employee. It is irrelevant whether you then go on to offer them a new contract. An employer cannot 'simply' give notice to terminate the contract without giving a fair reason for doing so and following a fair disciplinary procedure.

From the ACAS leaflet: "If you cannot reach agreement with your employees you can serve notice to terminate the existing contract and offer the employee re-engagement on the new terms. This should be considered only after full and thorough consultation with employees and their representatives and treated as a last resort.
By doing this you will be dismissing the employee and it is important that you follow a fair dismissal process and offer the employee the right of appeal against their dismissal. Your employee may make a claim to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal. It would be for the Employment Tribunal to decide whether or not the dismissal was fair or unfair."

Undervalued

SeduLOUs wrote: »

It isn't a resignation. By terminating the contract you have dismissed the employee. It is irrelevant whether you then go on to offer them a new contract. An employer cannot 'simply' give notice to terminate the contract without giving a fair reason for doing so and following a fair disciplinary procedure.

From the ACAS leaflet: "If you cannot reach agreement with your employees you can serve notice to terminate the existing contract and offer the employee re-engagement on the new terms. This should be considered only after full and thorough consultation with employees and their representatives and treated as a last resort.
By doing this you will be dismissing the employee and it is important that you follow a fair dismissal process and offer the employee the right of appeal against their dismissal. Your employee may make a claim to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal. It would be for the Employment Tribunal to decide whether or not the dismissal was fair or unfair."

One could debate this and the accuracy or otherwise of ACAS's leaflet but it is largely irrelevant.

If an employee is unwilling to accept a change of contract requested by his employer and is unable to negotiate an acceptable compromise then the employer can simply impose the change. The employee then has only two options, either accept it (which he is doing by default if he remains employed) or resign.

If he resigns and has been employed for more than two years he has the option of bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. Note that under these circumstances it is not CONSTRUCTIVE unfair dismissal despite the resignation. Whether he wins or not is another mater for the reasons Sangie595 has explained.

Even if he does win a tribunal has effectively no power to order the employer to reinstate the employee. Yes, theoretically they can order reinstatement but if the employer refuses the bottom line is only a small uplift in compensation.

The bottom line is that it is generally far, far easier than most people realise for an employer to change an employee's contract and for that to be perfectly fair (in law).