Pub Chef and New Owners

c1arke

Hi

My daughters partner worked at a local pub. He worked for previous owner for approx 8 years as a chef. Worked Tuesday to Sunday with every other week had Saturday evening off and all day Sunday off. Approx. 40 hrs per week doing split shifts. (Never had a written contract from him).

The owner left at end of March this year. New owners took over (a family of 3 people, the son being a chef)

The new owners told him his working week would be every Thursday to Sunday every week from 10.30am till close with no split shifts. They said that they were not going to be serving food on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. (Although we have found out that they are serving food).

When he asked about having every other weekend off as he had done previously, they said that he did not say initially he had wanted every other weekend off. (He was told by the previous owner that he would be working the same hours, he took this to mean the same days and terms as well).

They said they could put him on a zero hour contract but he would still be expected to work those hours. He said that he was not happy with that. The asked him if he wanted to work those hours or leave, so he left the job. (Last week)

My daughter has to work every other weekend at her job and they had their weekends matched up so they could spend time together.

Are people allowed to do just this?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Emmia

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6663785/pub-chef-and-new-owners

The new owners wanted him to leave, and he's given them what they want, and left.

He's presumably looking for another job?

If you're asking whether he has a claim against them for anything... I'd ask whether he has the money for legal advice/action...

Sometimes it's better just to walk away.

Undervalued

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81959567#Comment_81959567

Indeed.

He wasn't in a very strong position, as business owners can quite often lawfully make changes to an employee's contract to suit business needs. Ultimately, if they can't agree, his option may have been to refuse the changes, resign and claim unfair dismissal. A tribunal would then decide if the changes were reasonable or not. If he won he would have got some compensation (generally less than people think) but he would still have been without a job as an employment tribunal has no meaningful power to force reinstatement.

It is possible (but unlikely) he could still go down that route but he would need to get some professional legal advice.

Unless he has access to free legal advice (union or house insurance??) it would be a big gamble. Some solicitors offer either a free half hour (or reduced but fixed fee) to assess a case.

c1arke

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, I also thought they just wanted rid of him because they had someone else to take over his role.

He is currently looking for another job. He doesn't have a lot of confidence but hopefully something will turn up.

I was wondering if constructive dismissal applied here but think it would probably be best to walk away.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Undervalued

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81959797#Comment_81959797

Constructive dismissal is an exceptionally hard claim to win. I have read that less that 3% succeed at tribunal, although obviously some others are settled beforehand.

If he resigned because he was not willing to accept contract changes that is not constructive dismissal, despite the resignation. However he would need to have followed the correct steps. Even than, as I said above, the changes may well be "fair" due to business needs.

You may be right that they wanted him out, in order to employ somebody the knew. However proving it is another matter.