Holiday pay ruling to impact millions of workers

[milquetoast1 10]

It might be possible to claim for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal, but it's by no means a guaranteed win.

 

https://www.gov.uk/your-employment-contract-how-it-can-be-changed/getting-agreement

 

It might not be a guaranteed win, and any payout might be negligible compared to losing a job, but if an employer wants to force a change in contract without your agreement then it is constructive dismissal.

 

The key word is agreement.

 

My response was to "if you don't like it, you can refuse and be out of a job".

 

It's not quite so black and white. You can explain why you don't like it and attempt to agree something different, you can leave your job with a constructive dismissal claim that might be worth something between naff all and quite a lot, or just begrudgingly accept the terms.

 

Sometimes an employee might refuse to sign new terms and it's actually the employer that begrudgingly accepts the situation and keeps them on the old terms because they are a good employee.

[Obelix 11]

It happens all the time though. An employer can simply tell their staff that their 9-5 hours are being changed to shift patterns, give them enough notice and that's that. The staff can't refuse.

 

Of course they can refuse. I really don't know where you get this from - any employer that did that would lose a tribunal immediately.

[milquetoast1 10]

It happens all the time though. An employer can simply tell their staff that their 9-5 hours are being changed to shift patterns, give them enough notice and that's that. The staff can't refuse.

 

Of course they can refuse. It's just that they usually don't, or don't think they can, or the job market is sufficiently rubbish that it's not worth a couple of months money in compensation to be looking for a new job. Probably the latter.

[Bonzo77 13]

Of course they can refuse. I really don't know where you get this from - any employer that did that would lose a tribunal immediately.

 

That's not what happened when I worked for HSBC. They told us our hours were changing and that was that. Nothing we could do about it. A parents there was something in their contracts that stated they could make amendments at any time, with enough given notice. Surely all employment contracts have these clauses in them?

[milquetoast1 10]

It happens all the time though. An employer can simply tell their staff that their 9-5 hours are being changed to shift patterns, give them enough notice and that's that. The staff can't refuse.

 

It's this sort of thinking, which is prevalent, that helps employers get away with all sorts of nonsense.

 

At the companies I've worked at, I bet 9 out of 10 employees don't even read their contracts when they are given new ones to sign.

 

Of course the employer has some protection too, and if a change is in the business needs and it's not detrimental then the employee will not be able to refuse. But if an employee is being asked to accept shift patterns, or change location (beyond a specified distance), then an employee will certainly be entitled to constructive dismissal.

[Obelix 11]

That's not what happened when I worked for HSBC. They told us our hours were changing and that was that. Nothing we could do about it. A parents there was something in their contracts that stated they could make amendments at any time, with enough given notice. Surely all employment contracts have these clauses in them?

 

In which case you were not previously working 9-5 hours were you? You were working hours that could be whatever your employer liked and you agreed to that at contract time...

 

Some contracts have those terms, some don't. Some will specify "core hours" and overtime "as and when required subject to a maximum of 2.5 hours per day and 8 hours per week" for example.... some will specify exact hours in say a factory..

[Cyclone 10]

Not legally they can't unless they can show it's in the business needs - or it's not detrimental. Otherwise it's either unfair dismissal or constructively dismissed depending on what exactly happens

 

Not that high a bar "business need" is generally fairly easy to establish for a business.

[Obelix 11]

Not that high a bar "business need" is generally fairly easy to establish for a business.

 

Do people really think though that employers go around just looking to be awkward because they can? If an employer was going to say make a change in hours to work just to pursue a small profit most wont - because it annoys the workforce, it makes them less productive, more likely to leave and all that costs the business a lot more money than they would probably make from the change. It takes a real significant requirement for that to be overcome and hence the need is usually quite obvious.

[Cyclone 10]

No, I think there probably are genuine business needs in a lot of cases. Of course these could be addressed in many different ways, but forcing the existing employees to accept a new contract is the cheapest/easiest, despite being legally questionable.

 

Which relates well to the legal question that a judge has now answered regarding overtime and holiday pay, doesn't it?

[Mecky 10]

Do people really think though that employers go around just looking to be awkward because they can?

 

Yes, they do. Why do you ask? I wonder how employers would feel if employees turned around and said you got to do this, you've got to do that whilst paying them a hardly sustainable wage in relation to the cost of living?

 

BTW the decision of the ruling this week doesn't affect me at present, nor do I expect it to in the near future.

[truman 10]

Yes, they do. Why do you ask? I wonder how employers would feel if employees turned around and said you got to do this, you've got to do that whilst paying them a hardly sustainable wage in relation to the cost of living?

 

 

What do you think it was like in the 70's when the unions had all the power and they were asking for wages that weren't sustainable in relation to the business...They never gave ultimatums to employers did they?

[Obelix 11]

Yes, they do. Why do you ask? .

 

Why do you expect me to answer your questions when you wont answer mine?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 11:43 ----------

 

No, I think there probably are genuine business needs in a lot of cases. Of course these could be addressed in many different ways, but forcing the existing employees to accept a new contract is the cheapest/easiest, despite being legally questionable.

 

Which relates well to the legal question that a judge has now answered regarding overtime and holiday pay, doesn't it?

 

Forcing them to accept a new contract and invoking a clause in their existing contract are two very different things, and that's what people on here are getting conflated together I think.