Company cutting hours.

elsien

My workplace is having to implement a cut of a number of hours a week, not enough to lose any one employee.
If there are no volunteers to accept a cut in hours, is there a usual mechanism to decide who the hours are taken from?

As a secondary question, I am employed on a home worker contract. There may be the option to transfer to a different part of the organisation, carrying out the same role. All new employees are being taken on as office based. Could my current terms and conditions transfer with me as it's not a new role, just in a different area?

sangie595

These are things for the employer to negotiate (or potentially enforce if they can't). It's rather hard to advise based on predictions. The employer could allow you to remain on your current working arrangements - that is always an option for any employer. But unless these are based on reasonable adjustments, technically they could make your existing home based role redundant (assuming a fair redundancy process) and offer you an office based role in another office. Whether they could force you to take that role is another matter - I'm not going to guess at that one, as I'm already out on a limb here!

As for deciding who to take the hours from - no there isn't a usual process, but if we are talking about not enough hours to make up a whole job, is there any mileage in you all agreeing to take an equal share of the cut? I suppose it depends on how many of you there are, but if there are a few of you, then losing, say, an hour each, it's going to be a better bet than you all waiting to see where the axe falls, and that possibly forcing one of you out anyway.

The other obvious point to make its, can you suggest other options? It friends on why the cut is needed. But if it is to save money, then there may be other avenues to saving money. Although if there isn't enough work, that may not offer as many choices.

elsien

Thanks. Cut is needed to save money as the commissioners have cut the number of hours they are willing to pay for and there isn't any scope to make savings elsewhere - so far no-one is saying they want to reduce any further. Waiting to see what HR proposals are first, I think. Although a couple of hours each seems reasonable to me at least one person is saying they can't afford to lose anything although I suspect there's a head in the sand element going on there a little.

I've just had another read of my contract and it does appear to suggest that the usual place of work can be amended to suit the company. Which isn't great news as I only do the role because it's a homeworker contract.
Thanks for the input, anyway.

sangie595

In my experience, being proactive is better than waiting for the employer to find an answer. Theirs is always worse than yours! Talk to your colleagues about options. Ask their opinions. Point out the weaknesses to the head in the sand position - losing one hour is better than losing ten!

Your contractual terms are important, but they aren't the only critical consideration. Why could you not do the role if office based? And how long have you been home based?

elsien

Personal reasons and quality of life - job covers a fairly wide geographical area and if office based would involve hitting the motorway at rush hour, potentially giving me an 1 1/2 to 2 hour commute each way. Whereas now I can plan to set off at quieter times and my travel is included in my working day.

I've been doing the role as homebased for over 2 years now.

jobbingmusician

elsien, have you checked that the reduced number of hours the commissioners are willing to pay for are even legal? (I say this knowing the nature of your job. I fail to see how the hours commissioned by some local authorities can ensure that your clients are anywhere near being able to access the services they are legally entitled to!)

elsien

Fairly sure legal requirements are not being met, particularly with regards to DoLS. Then again, show me a LA in the country that is currently meeting those requirements. It's just a mess all round.

jobbingmusician

I wonder if the Union might be interested in taking this up, then? You could try selling it to them as a potential high profile case.........

sangie595

I assume then that this is mental capacity services? If so, the LA defence is that they do not tell the provider of the service how to run their business, and so it is up to the provider to manage their service within the commissioned budget that is agreed. If they cannot do so, they should not have bid at that level.

I understand that isn't the way the world works, and that is a poor excuse for anything, but that is what local authorities are forced into. You may be aware that in some areas organisations have begun withdrawing from bidding for commissioned services because they cannot run them safely and in compliance with the law on the amount of money available for contracts. If local authorities had the money, they'd give it - but instead they are forced to spend it all running around cleaning up the mess that underfunding produces because the government does not support the services in the first place!

Elsien- can any of your personal readings be reduced to discrimination? I know that the commute time is a pain and get that, but there isn't a lot I can do with that. However, and I'll give you my own example as a comparison, commuting to my office, which is only 9 miles away, takes up to an hour and sometimes longer at rush hour! I struggle with that drive because it causes me pain that is much worse than if I am able to drive quickly outside rush hour. So whilst I can work at home too whether I want, I also have an agreement that no commitments for meetings or office based work involves having to drive in rush hour - in other words, I don't set out until after rush hour, and don't return during it. That way I can manage. It isn't so much a reasonable adjustment - although it is one obviously - as a sensible plan by us all. Would a similar thing be a valid argument for you? In other words, not playing the discrimination card as such, but a suggestion that avoids everyone having to discuss it at all? Sometimes, life is best served by avoiding discussions and just being sensible!

jobbingmusician

I was deliberately vague so as not to give away what the service actually is, but (although DoLS is the most highly regulated) my arguement was actually about IMHA. Those detained under the MHA are are supposed to appeal within 2 weeks (if they want to appeal). I fail to see how a commissioned service which attends a hospital with 3 wards for half a day a week (the service commissioned by my LA) can be said to provide the legally required access to an IMHA. In this case I believe the commissioners have knowingly commissioned an inadequate service.

sangie595

I totally agree with your concerns. But to refuse to give a commission, the commissioners must know, not suspect, that criteria cannot be met. If the bidding agency says they can manage the requirements of the contract, then it would take evidence that can withstand a legal challenge that they cannot for the commissioning staff to refuse to accept what they say. It is far from rare for us to end up defending employees who have been complained about because they have done exactly that, and the evidence is usually there to defend the position.

I think everyone understands that agencies are being overly optimistic about what they can do with the money available, but it is proving it that is the problem. So I do agree with your assessment of that specific case - but is that your belief, or do you have some evidence of it? Because more often than not, the evidence only becomes available when something goes wrong. A wholly unacceptable state of affairs. But, given the cuts, the only way to handle too little money and too much demand.

And there have been legal opinions sought on this. Several. None of the lawyers consulted can find a way around it. We had two specific cases that we took legal advice on. And I know our largest local authority in the region also took detailed legal advice from an independent source which cost them a fortune to try to find a way out of giving contacts to people that, like you, they KNEW were bidding at a level that was unsustainable in terms of delivery. I understand that the GMB have also taken advice on this matter, although I haven't seen their opinions. I'd be surprised if UNISON haven't done the same.

Councils would, without a doubt, wholeheartedly back any such claim. They have finite resources. I know that my own council is running a £4 million funding gap on social care - as in, they know it takes £4 million more to fund to an absolutely basic service level, but they don't have that money so the budget is set at £4 million less than they need. That leaves staff knowingly having to set out tenders that they cannot expect to get a decent bid for. Which is something, you would find, that they abhor, but sorry of finding another job, they have no choice on.