question on employment law : Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:19 pm  

The company I work for issues contracts with the hours 9am - 5:30 including an hour lunch break, i.e a 37.5 hour week. It is "custom and practice" (and has been since I started in Jan 08) however for staff to work 8am to 4 pm with a 30 min lunch break, so still a 37.5 hour week. Our time sheets are required to be 37.5 hours. Our type of work prevents us from having a working lunch as we work in a laboratory environment. This is pretty much an industry standard for our type of work. Pay is ok for our sector but lower than the industry average by approx 25%. Most of the staff are fresh graduates who don't know any better or like myself have been made redundant from larger companies. The company only has around 30 employees and is not unionised (yet!).

At a recent staff meeting which I did not attend due to a holiday, as far as I can make out from my colleagues, management stated their intention to alter the contracts to reflect "custom and practice" in that the new hours would be 8 am - 4pm but that we would be expected to work a 40 hour week excluding lunchtime i.e. we would be working an extra 2.5 hours per week and would have to make up any time we took out for lunch. Currently overtime is paid at time and a half for working 1 day at weekend and double time for the second day at weekend. This is to be reduced to single time and time and a half. This isn't in our contracts so can't really argue but suffice to say I wont be volunteering for overtime any more. They also want to reduce the holiday entitlement for new starters from our current 25 days plus bank hols (again an industry standard) as they allready think we get too many hols! I think one of our directors in particular wants a high tech company with Victorian working conditions.

As quite a few of us end up working late most days I find this penny pinching a bit mean and antagonising to the workforce, especially as the company is growing at 30% pa and is making a healthy profit and because it wont really increase productivity by any great degree . A few of my colleagues have stated that they are going to look to move on, but easier said than done at the moment (I originally took the job as a stop gap as did several others).

Any ideas on how legally enforcable this is as it is really going to have an impact on my life outside work.

Re: question on employment law : Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:21 am  

I imagine they'd have no problem enforcing these new working condition, providing they have followed guidelines on consultation etc.

It seems like they are a bunch of shysters, seeking to take advantage of the current employment situation. Shortsighted management who can only see cost-cutting as a way of improving the bottom line.

Ifd you aren't unionised, do you have a staff association that meets with management to discuss such proposals prior to them being presented as a fait accompli?

Re: question on employment law : Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:08 am  

First thing: is the company itself in decent financial health?

Taking on board Cod'ead's question about a staff association, if not, how quickly could you unionise and would you be able to get the density to ensure that your employer had to legally recognise the union?

Regardless of that – and even any staff association – have you and your colleagues considered a sort of informal work to rule, since the company is already relying on your goodwill to get work done?

Re: question on employment law : Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:09 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

The company I work for issues contracts with the hours 9am - 5:30 including an hour lunch break, i.e a 37.5 hour week. It is "custom and practice" (and has been since I started in Jan 08) however for staff to work 8am to 4 pm with a 30 min lunch break, so still a 37.5 hour week. Our time sheets are required to be 37.5 hours. Our type of work prevents us from having a working lunch as we work in a laboratory environment. This is pretty much an industry standard for our type of work. Pay is ok for our sector but lower than the industry average by approx 25%. Most of the staff are fresh graduates who don't know any better or like myself have been made redundant from larger companies. The company only has around 30 employees and is not unionised (yet!).

At a recent staff meeting which I did not attend due to a holiday, as far as I can make out from my colleagues, management stated their intention to alter the contracts to reflect "custom and practice" in that the new hours would be 8 am - 4pm but that we would be expected to work a 40 hour week excluding lunchtime i.e. we would be working an extra 2.5 hours per week and would have to make up any time we took out for lunch. Currently overtime is paid at time and a half for working 1 day at weekend and double time for the second day at weekend. This is to be reduced to single time and time and a half. This isn't in our contracts so can't really argue but suffice to say I wont be volunteering for overtime any more. They also want to reduce the holiday entitlement for new starters from our current 25 days plus bank hols (again an industry standard) as they allready think we get too many hols! I think one of our directors in particular wants a high tech company with Victorian working conditions.

As quite a few of us end up working late most days I find this penny pinching a bit mean and antagonising to the workforce, especially as the company is growing at 30% pa and is making a healthy profit and because it wont really increase productivity by any great degree . A few of my colleagues have stated that they are going to look to move on, but easier said than done at the moment (I originally took the job as a stop gap as did several others).

Any ideas on how legally enforcable this is as it is really going to have an impact on my life outside work.

The first thing I'd want to find out is what exactly was said in the meeting, go speak to HR. Info from colleagues can turn into a game of Chinese whispers, as has recently happened at a pensions meeting at our place I was unable to attend, 2 people, same meeting, 2 different stories.

Re: question on employment law : Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:33 pm  

The general position is that an employer cannot unilaterally (without consent of employer and employee) vary your contract of employment.

However there are a few ways around this. There may be a term in your employment contract stating they can can vary the terms without your consent. You will need to check this. These terms are a bit contentious however.

To be frank, in the long term the company will get what they want. New starters will be put on the new contract and if they are very keen to push through the changes they will simply sack everyone in the company (or everyone who cannot realistically make a claim - those with 2 years or less continuous employment) and then offer to re-hire them on the new contract terms.

Even with a claim for unfair dismissal. How are you going to demonstrate you have mitigated your loss if you refuse an offer of employment from your old company?

Unfortunately if you really don't want to work under the new terms, it's probably time to find another employer.

Re: question on employment law : Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:28 pm  

The company is very sound financially (that is what leaves a sour taste in my mouth about this). We have no staff association and though a few of us would join a union I can't see us getting enough support to force through union recognition. We do not have an HR person and all staff related issues are sorted out by the two directors who founded the company (done because they couldn't get jobs when they left Uni). The general feeling I get is that they have an attitude of think yourself lucky that you have a job. I knew one of the directors from Uni and he was always a bit shifty then.

I have a feeling that there are two reasons for this move:

i) they sold a 51% stake to an Indian company (who appear to be quite well disposed towards their staff and I think know that the current management isn't all it could be) a few years ago and are due to sell the rest for a negotiated fee in May 2015 should both sides be happy. The changes are an attempt to increase profitability to get a better price for the balance of their share in the company.

ii) the new pension laws will see them have to dramatically increase their contributions to the employees pensions compared to the pittance they contribute now. This is an attempt to get that outlay back in to their coffers through increased productivity.

I really don't think they realise how reliant the company is on several key members of staff (one of whom leaves at the end of the month) and the good will of other staff members. Personally the only reason I haven't bailed out before now is that I have a secure job but they are now extracting the urine a bit!

Re: question on employment law : Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:02 am  

Only two points to make and without biting the hand that currently feeds you ...

1. The extra 2.5 hours per week you will be working won't increase your productivity will it ? Thats not really a question, its more an instruction.

2. You already state that you won't be volunteering for overtime any longer, good, keep it like that.

We're currently going through something very similar in the company I work for and any employee goodwill has now vanished, I now have outside service staff knocking off at 2pm some afternoons having completed their 9.5 hour required shift by then, one of them wouldn't go to an additional job just five minutes from where he was located the other day because the hour or so that he would have spent there would be unpaid (I really do mean unpaid) so it had to be scheduled for another day with all the extra travel time added back in - employment has to be a two way process with give and take from both parties because ultimately a demoralised workforce is not going to help anyone (literally).

Re: question on employment law : Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:21 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Only two points to make and without biting the hand that currently feeds you ...

1. The extra 2.5 hours per week you will be working won't increase your productivity will it ? Thats not really a question, its more an instruction.

2. You already state that you won't be volunteering for overtime any longer, good, keep it like that.

We're currently going through something very similar in the company I work for and any employee goodwill has now vanished, I now have outside service staff knocking off at 2pm some afternoons having completed their 9.5 hour required shift by then, one of them wouldn't go to an additional job just five minutes from where he was located the other day because the hour or so that he would have spent there would be unpaid (I really do mean unpaid) so it had to be scheduled for another day with all the extra travel time added back in - employment has to be a two way process with give and take from both parties because ultimately a demoralised workforce is not going to help anyone (literally).

Precisely. Staggering short-sightedness.