Change of contract and office closure

GingerTim

You and your colleagues really should join a union, sooner rather than later.

born_again

lisyloo said:

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned but there are people who may have the heating off at home during the day (or a low thermostat setting). Heating bills could be higher than commuting in this day and age.

Whilst a good employer may look to put some transitory arrangements in place, basically this is a business change that people have to adapt to.

If am employee really doesn't like it - and some of us do still like being in an office, then their best best is to find another job.

Good employers typically put transitory arrangements in place, but it is not usually very extensive.
Most places do have some hot desking and meeting rooms.

I get £26 per month, but also have an office that I choose to go to so I guess I'm lucky.

Heating house all day is not as expensive as many think. As house is kept at a more constant temperature. Thus does not use a lot of energy to reheat a cold property.

Mart700

Thank you all for the updates—this aligns with what I was expecting.

Just to clarify, this change isn’t a significant issue for me personally, as I’m fortunate to be in a stable situation. However, there are colleagues in the office who will be more adversely affected by the transition. My aim is to better understand our collective rights as employees and to set realistic expectations for what we can achieve through the consultation process.

Grumpy_chap

Mart700 said:

Its mostly prototype hardware. 

It is quite possible that the company will not want prototype products being used in individual's homes.  They may change practices accordingly so that only regular laptops are used in people's homes.  Prototype products may not have significant material costs but the intellectual property value might be high.  

Mart700 said:

I wondered if the company has a duty to ensure that employees aren’t placed in a worse financial position when enforcing a contractual change. 

There is no specific rule, and the company is following the consultation approach so not forcing the change.
One assumes the company is keen to retain staff and that will mean the company want to find a solution that leaves the majority better off (or at least no worse off) than they are currently.  

Mart700 said:

My aim is to better understand our collective rights as employees and to set realistic expectations for what we can achieve through the consultation process.

Given there is no Union, so limited collective bargaining, you are probably best served as an individual in compiling your responses in as factual a manner as you can (with no emotion) simply stating your position:

• I really enjoy my job and hope to continue contributing to our combined success and growth for many years to come
• My home insurance will not cover the prototype equipment
• I will incur costs of £x per year working from home
• I will not make savings on commute because I currently walk to the office
• I don't have adequate space to set up a good and DSE compliant work space - I will have to sit on the end of the bed / at the dining room table...
• I will need a suitable desk / chair to be able to work from home
• If the office does close, would the company consider paying for a shared workspace given I don't have space at home?  

If it is not a concern for you, then you don't need to say any of the above.  If you take the role of fighting the corner for others / the team, you may be seen as a trouble maker.
You may wish to suggest that the colleagues that are affected prepare their own factual responses and submit as part of the consultation.  Offering alternative solutions can also be looked at favourably even if the company do not accept the suggestions.

p00hsticks

Grumpy_chap said:

Given there is no Union, so limited collective bargaining, you are probably best served as an individual in compiling your responses in as factual a manner as you can (with no emotion) simply stating your position: 
<snip>
If it is not a concern for you, then you don't need to say any of the above.  If you take the role of fighting the corner for others / the team, you may be seen as a trouble maker.
You may wish to suggest that the colleagues that are affected prepare their own factual responses and submit as part of the consultation.  Offering alternative solutions can also be looked at favourably even if the company do not accept the suggestions.

The OP may be considering putting themselves forward to be one of the 'elected employee representatives'. In my experience of a similar role (but for TUPE) , other employees are told to submit their concerns / questions etc to the rep, rather than directly to the employer, and the rep then has the responsibility of  taking items forward to the employer and negotiating with them, 

Grumpy_chap

p00hsticks said:

The OP may be considering putting themselves forward to be one of the 'elected employee representatives'. 

Yes, that thought had crossed my mind too.
The OP says, however, 

Mart700 said:

Just to clarify, this change isn’t a significant issue for me personally

Sometimes in life you need to pick your battles.  If the OP is comfortable with the changes proposed by the employer however it pans out, the OP might just be better to keep quite and let the process move along.  If there are others with bigger concerns, let those others fight their own battles and present the case they wish to make to the company.

Mart700

As @p00hsticksmentioned, there will be employee representative elections to act as a bridge between employees and HR as part of the consultation process. I wanted to understand what would be expected of an employee representative and what they would realistically be able to achieve. 

There is no point in going in with unrealistic expectations and just causing trouble. The process needs to be handled in the best way possible for all.

For some people prototype hardware won't be allowed in their homes for proprietary reasons. For these people their role might well need to change and the employee representatives will need to make sure anyone affected by this will still have a role within the organisation. 

Potbellypig

penners324 said:

Any equipment will be insured by the company so nothing to worry about.

Any extra utilities costs will be covered by reduced commuting costs 

That's not how it works. 

RemoteWorkIsAllGoodAndWellBut

Am in a similar situation with my company whereby they are planning to close the office and make everyone remote work. Sounds like they plan to just make an addendum to our contract in order to do this so that we don't have to sign it and therefore they can get away w/o having to offer us redundancy if we don't want to become fully remote workers. Anyone know if this is legal for them to do this or not?

Undervalued

RemoteWorkIsAllGoodAndWellBut said:

Am in a similar situation with my company whereby they are planning to close the office and make everyone remote work. Sounds like they plan to just make an addendum to our contract in order to do this so that we don't have to sign it and therefore they can get away w/o having to offer us redundancy if we don't want to become fully remote workers. Anyone know if this is legal for them to do this or not?

If they handle it carefully then most likely yes.

Virtually all contracts have a mobility clause and they have a legal duty to take all reasonable steps not to make staff redundant. No doubt they will have sound "business reasons" why they want to close your current office and broadly speaking that is a business decision a company is free to take. You will save commuting costs so are unlikely to be out of pocket.

Ultimately they can impose the change and if you don't agree your only option is to resign and file a claim for unfair dismissal (not constructive dismissal under these circumstances despite the resignation). Take proper professional advice before going down that route as you will likely struggle.