signing contract for job you didnt take

iammumtoone

Ok so I sign the contract for a job I am not doing, I do understand if the company wont change it I have no choice, especially if they haven't done anything wrong.

Who do I now report to? do I start reporting to the person who is listed as my manager on the job the contract states. or do I carry on reporting to the person whos my boss in the job I am actually doing?

The person I currently report to and work for, the role the contract states is nothing to do with them. I currently have nothing to do with the person who I should be reporting to for doing the role the contract states (this person will have no idea of what the job I am doing involves - they are in a completely different department)

theoretica

If an employer has more people doing a role than it thinks it needs that can be a redundancy situation.

iammumtoone

theoretica wrote: »

If an employer has more people doing a role than it thinks it needs that can be a redundancy situation.

Ok fair enough but shouldn't they have stated that from the start and offered the new roles just one in each department rather than offering merged roles which they then decide not to go ahead with? but keep the contracts as if they were.

sangie595

This is a public site. If you want private legal advice, you need to pay a lawyer. Many people benefit from the posts here, and deciding what you will delete and what you won't is unfair to them and the people spending time trying to help you.

The employer has done nothing wrong. The role you had was possibly redundant, but a suitable alternative existed and they have given you that. That is the law. It is what they must do. However, it may not even be necessary to consider it a redundancy - variance of contractual conditions and job descriptions is common, and quite legal. The fact that you are currently not doing the full role is irrelevant. Restructuring of this type is common and provides employers with a more flexible workforce. If you are unclear about who your line manager is, nobody here can answer that - ask your employer.

I suggest that you do not in future demand that people don't quote posts. It's an invitation to ignore it. If you do not wish to post, then don't.

iammumtoone

Apologies if I have offended I did not want the post quoted as I could be identified from it, I tried my best to relay the situation without identifying myself as such but felt it would help more if I give more detail.

I do appreciate the help that has been given. I am not normally one to go round deleting my posts/threads as I do know it helps others.

NewShadow

iammumtoone wrote: »

Apologies if I have offended I did not want the post quoted as I could be identified from it, I tried my best to relay the situation without identifying myself as such but felt it would help more if I give more detail.

Not offended but want you to know - posting extra, potentially identifying detail then deleting it - it's normally clear from the responses that a post was deleted and it just took me 30 seconds on google quoting the post title to find the cached versions of the page and the deleted post (post ending: "As said I do not want to rock the boat I just want my contract to state a job that is possible not something that is impossible for one person to achieve.").

Nothing is ever really deleted on the internet therefore if you may want to be careful what you choose to post on the forum.

AFAIK the only sub-forum which isn't routinely cached is discussion time

iammumtoone

NewShadow wrote: »

Not offended but want you to know - posting extra, potentially identifying detail then deleting it - it's normally clear from the responses that a post was deleted and it just took me 30 seconds on google quoting the post title to find the cached versions of the page and the deleted post (post ending: "As said I do not want to rock the boat I just want my contract to state a job that is possible not something that is impossible for one person to achieve.").

Nothing is ever really deleted on the internet therefore if you may want to be careful what you choose to post on the forum.

AFAIK the only sub-forum which isn't routinely cached is discussion time

Yes I do realise that but thats only because it was mentioned that I deleted a post for people to know to go looking for it.

If there had been no mention of the deleted post then I doubt people go round checking every thread to see if anyone has deleted anything.

NewShadow

iammumtoone wrote: »

Yes I do realise that but thats only because it was mentioned that I deleted a post for people to know to go looking for it.

If there had been no mention of the deleted post then I doubt people go round checking every thread to see if anyone has deleted anything.

Yes and no. On this thread you did, but the reason you posted extra detail was to inform the responses you were receiving - therefore it would be reasonable to consider the risk related to posting that additional information in the first place.

You may not be in the habit of deleting posts but you can't deny some people do and that it's often evident when selected posts have been deleted.

Even if you hadn't commented on the post being deleted - there is a step change in the responses to this threads when posters start talking about redundancy - there's nothing in your existing posts to suggest this is a redundancy situation so it begs the question where that idea came from.

Either way - I just wanted to make sure you were fully aware of the potential risks of any future course of action you choose to take and wish you the best in resolving your current situation to your satisfaction.

:beer: