Change to employment contract

getmore4less

KiKi wrote: »

I'm wondering if this would actually fall under the law regarding part time workers regulations, albeit indirectly.

if it did with the current wording it would be easy to fix.

the key is how they cover holiday sick for other jobs and why this one job needs this type of cover, if it was one person doing the job how would they cover it then.

What has happened that triggered this change?

as described it is too open ended on the sick side, what if one was off sick for longer than the odd week with the current wording the other would end up full time, what if they then tried to use/extend it to do maternity cover or secondment or if the other person wanted to reduce hours.

if the TOIL option is in the same week so it really is just varying the days or overtime if wanted that would be more reasonable

There should be consultation to discuss the change and put something in place that meets the business needs that is clear and acceptable as possible to all parties.

Xbigman

Surely accepting the change by default without signing would involve working extra days at some point. If the OP refuses to sign and refuses to work extra days then they haven't accepted?


I'd also want more information on holiday pay. If I was required to work extra days then it isn't overtime and I'd expect to get extra holidays for it.
Also, if there is no overlap you can currently both book the same week on holiday. If you must cover each other you can't.
And then there is the matter of your holidays. I also work 3 days so I know a weeks holiday is 11 days off. If I suddenly had to work the first 3 covering someone else I'd call that holidays lost.

OP make a list of all the questions on this thread and ask for clarification from your employers. This change seems badly thought out and they may give up when all your issues with it come to light.



Darren