Variation in employment terms - can it be imposed?
Discussion
Earlier this year my wife handed in her notice to her employer and to retain her they ‘enhanced’ her employment terms.
As part of the terms she was allowed a reduced workload - specifically case numbers, she is a social worker. The other enhancements were slightly more money and compressed hours.
This was all agreed in writing and began on the 1st March this year.
This was 6 months ago. Her employer is now wanting to increase her workload back to the previous level.
Are they allowed to do this? They say they are and will impose it if she doesn’t agree to it.
As part of the terms she was allowed a reduced workload - specifically case numbers, she is a social worker. The other enhancements were slightly more money and compressed hours.
This was all agreed in writing and began on the 1st March this year.
This was 6 months ago. Her employer is now wanting to increase her workload back to the previous level.
Are they allowed to do this? They say they are and will impose it if she doesn’t agree to it.
Yes, they are entitled to change the terms of the contract subject to due and legal process being followed - a combination of consultation, compensation and remuneration. The ease of which is, as Jodie alludes to above, rooted in the nature of the previous contract amendment.
Your wife is also entitled to hand her notice in again.
Your wife is also entitled to hand her notice in again.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Not enough information.
Was the reduction as an addendum to her contract? Is there a time limit on it? Is it subject to review?
Yes, it took the form of an email confirming the changes and no new contract was signed.Was the reduction as an addendum to her contract? Is there a time limit on it? Is it subject to review?
There was no time limit on it air wasn’t subject to any review.
Edited by hepy on Wednesday 28th August 14:27
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Did the email state it was an addendum to contract? If not, it's just an email agreeing to something that can (and looks like it has) been withdrawn at any time.
The bottom line here, is she is going to have to sack it up, or resign. She can't force the issue if it isn't contractual.
Hi, apologies there was no time limit (reply amended).The bottom line here, is she is going to have to sack it up, or resign. She can't force the issue if it isn't contractual.
Yes, no addendum to contract was stated.
Thanks you for all the replies, looks like she will have to stand her ground and see how it goes.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Did the email state it was an addendum to contract? If not, it's just an email agreeing to something that can (and looks like it has) been withdrawn at any time.
The bottom line here, is she is going to have to sack it up, or resign. She can't force the issue if it isn't contractual.
Hi, apologies there was no time limit (reply amended).The bottom line here, is she is going to have to sack it up, or resign. She can't force the issue if it isn't contractual.
Yes, no addendum to contract was stated.
Thanks you for all the replies, looks like she will have to stand her ground and see how it goes.
There are times when relatively informal communications and even conduct without anything written can become a contractual term. Whether this is such a case depends on the circumstances. The pragmatic side of me says your OH needs to decide whether to tolerate the increased workload or leave.
Was the reduction in case work a "wellbeing thing"? Ie now that's "been addressed" do they think the case work can return to normal if excessive levels?
Seems to be how the public sector works. Claim to care about wellbeing, happily break dedicated people (and allow the useless people to slack) and stick a plaster on to tick their box of valuing and wellbeing.
Seems to be how the public sector works. Claim to care about wellbeing, happily break dedicated people (and allow the useless people to slack) and stick a plaster on to tick their box of valuing and wellbeing.
One of the reasons she wanted to leave was the case load and they agreed to reduce this as part of a package of measures to stop her leaving. Others were slight salary increase and compressed hours.
She had a meeting yesterday and they have increased her case load, telling her they can do this as the agreed enhancements weren’t part of her contract. Frustrating they are back tracking on something g they agreed to only 6 months ago. Whether they now try to reduce her pay and revise the compressed hours, we’ll wait and see.
She has expressed her displeasure at the new workload and she knows she could leave tomorrow and get another role elsewhere or temp for a while.
Lesson here is make sure any changes are part of your contract.
Thank you to everyone who replied to my post.
She had a meeting yesterday and they have increased her case load, telling her they can do this as the agreed enhancements weren’t part of her contract. Frustrating they are back tracking on something g they agreed to only 6 months ago. Whether they now try to reduce her pay and revise the compressed hours, we’ll wait and see.
She has expressed her displeasure at the new workload and she knows she could leave tomorrow and get another role elsewhere or temp for a while.
Lesson here is make sure any changes are part of your contract.
Thank you to everyone who replied to my post.
hepy,
It seems the employer knows they wouldn't now agree to contractually changing and reducing the workload. They gave your wife a non-contractual reprieve of 6 months. They've now removed that and reverted back to a prior, poor for your wife, workload.
As the prior workload was the reason for her previous resignation, it's time to resign and not be tempted with short-term offers of recompense.
Good luck to Mrs hepy.
It seems the employer knows they wouldn't now agree to contractually changing and reducing the workload. They gave your wife a non-contractual reprieve of 6 months. They've now removed that and reverted back to a prior, poor for your wife, workload.
As the prior workload was the reason for her previous resignation, it's time to resign and not be tempted with short-term offers of recompense.
Good luck to Mrs hepy.
Just because it wasn't written down, doesn't mean it wasn't a contractual change.
Given the process the OP describes; "I'm going to leave", "Please don't, we will do these things so that you stay..." in the absence of something written to the contrary, I would expect that the default position on this is that it is a contractual change. It's almost inconceivable that a time-limited offer was made that appeased a non-time limited problem.
But if the Employer disagrees, that does rather limit your available courses of action and you might struggle to get the outcome that you want without taking proper advice from an Employment Solicitor.
Given the process the OP describes; "I'm going to leave", "Please don't, we will do these things so that you stay..." in the absence of something written to the contrary, I would expect that the default position on this is that it is a contractual change. It's almost inconceivable that a time-limited offer was made that appeased a non-time limited problem.
But if the Employer disagrees, that does rather limit your available courses of action and you might struggle to get the outcome that you want without taking proper advice from an Employment Solicitor.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff