Secondment procedure

bobblebob

Ive been in talks with my employer about doing a 12 month internal secondment. Working in the same office just a different role. Some of the T&C for the new job would change - mainly around working hours. Ive been told they are flexible so i put forward what i would like, my employer told me what they need and we met in the middle. All this was very informal and just a verbal agreement. Having never been on a secondment before im not sure on the procedure.

Firstly should i get this verbal agreement around working hours in writing or in a new contract so they cant back out of it?

And secondly is there some kind of trial period with secondments (similar to how you legally are entitled to a 4 week trial if you were redeployed in your job)? Or if i dont like the new role is it tough?

Blatchford

This is all between you and the employer - secondments are not defined in law and so whatever you agree / the employers policy is what matters. Personally, I might send an email saying "can I just confirm that I have understood the things we agreed properly…" and leave it at that.

bobblebob

Thanks. Yea i would personally like something in writing because in the past my employer has been known to agree to things and then back out of those agreement.

Although if its not covered in law im not sure having it in writing would mean much

TELLIT01

A secondment can be terminated at any time. Business needs can change. I would ask for the agreed working hours to be put in writing, and confirmation that you will be able to return to your substantive role when the secondment ends.

bobblebob

TELLIT01 wrote: »

A secondment can be terminated at any time. Business needs can change. I would ask for the agreed working hours to be put in writing, and confirmation that you will be able to return to your substantive role when the secondment ends.

Well thats another thing. Part of why my employer is looking to seconder staff to other roles, is our current role wont be there for much longer, and they would rather find staff new work than pay redundancy. So there is a high chance at the end of my secondment, my substantive role wont be available.

I assume in that case they have to find you more work or pay you redundancy?

getmore4less

Why are they bothering to wrap this up with secondment/fixed term contract if everyone knows.

Just move people with mutual agreement into the jobs that need doing.

Blatchford

bobblebob wrote: »

Well thats another thing. Part of why my employer is looking to seconder staff to other roles, is our current role wont be there for much longer, and they would rather find staff new work than pay redundancy. So there is a high chance at the end of my secondment, my substantive role wont be available.

I assume in that case they have to find you more work or pay you redundancy?

Actually the employer is obliged in law to not make you redundant unless they have no other choice. So offering you suitable alternative employment is a requirement, and if you refuse suitable alternative employment then you don't get redundancy.

But on the issue you posted, I think you need to be conscious of the fact that many things can be changed about jobs, whether things are in writing or not. Hours of work, for example, may change of business needs dictate that happen, and it can be almost impossible to stop changes from happening. Much deoends on the detail of the change, but don't assume that, in writing or not, you'll have loads of protection against changes. So I'd still say that an email "clarifying" the agreement is as much use as a contract - in fact it would form pay off the contract in law anyway. It just won't stop them changing things if they are determined to.

TELLIT01

Blatchford wrote: »

Actually the employer is obliged in law to not make you redundant unless they have no other choice. So offering you suitable alternative employment is a requirement, and if you refuse suitable alternative employment then you don't get redundancy.

Are you sure about that? A job is made redundant, not the person. Therefore if the job no longer exists redundancy payment to the employee kicks in. I went through the redundancy process 4 times in my working life and alternative jobs were only offered on 2 occasions, both requiring relocation which I declined. I still got the redundancy package.

Blatchford

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Are you sure about that? A job is made redundant, not the person. Therefore if the job no longer exists redundancy payment to the employee kicks in. I went through the redundancy process 4 times in my working life and alternative jobs were only offered on 2 occasions, both requiring relocation which I declined. I still got the redundancy package.

Yes I am sure about that thank you.

Yes the job is redundant, but the person is dismissed by reason of redundancy - if you want the absolute legal status clear. But the employer must not dismiss unless there is no suitable alternative role available, otherwise it becomes an unfair dismissal. You made it clear that the options made available to your were not suitable - they required relocation. So you could turn them down and still be entitled to a redundancy payment. But if an offered role is suitable as an alternative, then the employer is entitled to refuse to make a redundancy payment. If the employee then disagrees they must go to a tribunal. Redundancy payments do not "kick in" if a job is made redundant. Entitlement to redundancy payments is based on no suitable alternative being available and the employee not getting another job before the statutory notice period begins.