Colleague Promotion

agrinnall

sangie595 wrote: »

If you were both on the same pay then there is no "head gardener" from what you are now saying.

OP has said that his pay is now less than it was before, so it seems like there could be a Head Gardener post and pay that goes with it.

marliepanda

agrinnall wrote: »

OP has said that his pay is now less than it was before, so it seems like there could be a Head Gardener post and pay that goes with it.

No.

It's confusing, agreed, but in post 8 he says him and this other guy were on same hours and pay. There was no 'head' pay, he just felt he was in charge due to length of service.

The pay is less as his hours are lower.

Undervalued

aife wrote: »

Was there ever any official acknowledgement , or anything in writing that you were head gardener , or was it just an informal understanding ?
Either way you definitely need to put something in writing , asking for an explanation and reiterating that you have not been consulted and have not agreed to a cut in hours

Even if there was it doesn't stop them appointing somebody else and calling them the "garden superintendent" or "executive head gardener" or similar.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

Even if there was it doesn't stop them appointing somebody else and calling them the "garden superintendent" or "executive head gardener" or similar.

Quite.

I am not clear here and the OP needs to explain. Because now I can construct quite a different situation. OP was never head gardener. They were simply the gardener who had been there longest. OP asks a director to reduce his hours "after his operation" - this is "after his operation"; so they have done as asked. This approaches a very different scenario in which the employer had done as they asked, but they didn't really have the job the OP asked for so they recruited a new gardener (because the reduced hours weren't enough to do the job) and OP had the new contract that he asked for. Now that sounds different, doesn't it? Yet it's the same facts.

Which is why we need more information about what the employer says has happened.

lincroft1710

JLS3405 wrote: »

I had a conversation in March with a Director about looking to go part time after a hand op, informal discussion but this seems to be why this guy has now got my job. I do not want to go part time.

So if you didn't want to go part time, why did you have a discussion about this with a director.

ohreally

Op, you seem to have lost seniority and put on reduced hours, as requested, would that be a fair summation?

Always be careful what you ask for as the devil is in the detail.

FBaby

Is your pay reduced pro-rata or has your hourly rate reduced?

Did you have an official title and this has now been officially changed? How have you been told that you are now PT and told how many hours you'll be expected to work?

pinkshoes

ohreally wrote: »

Op, you seem to have lost seniority and put on reduced hours, as requested, would that be a fair summation?

Always be careful what you ask for as the devil is in the detail.

The OP did NOT request reduced hours.

It was just something that was mentioned as a possibility but not required/requested.

OP, I would make it very clear that you do not wish to go part time, nor have a cut in your hours, and in doing so would be constructive dismissal.

sangie595

pinkshoes wrote: »

The OP did NOT request reduced hours.

It was just something that was mentioned as a possibility but not required/requested.

OP, I would make it very clear that you do not wish to go part time, nor have a cut in your hours, and in doing so would be constructive dismissal.

(A) Are you absolutely certain about that? The OP said here that they asked about reduced hours. Are you certain about the exact terms of that conversation? Were you there?
And
(B) No it would not be constructive dismissal. Where did they say they resigned? It might be unfair dismissal. Nothing constructive about it. But it isn't 100% clear here exactly what the OP said or did, and we know nothing at all about the employers position because the OP has not even spoken to them. They have had some sort of conversation with a colleague. That is hardly conclusive of anything.