Rate this!
Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts
Interesting one . Would it work the other way if an employee agreed to a change in contract and the employer tried to change it back?
For example......contract says ABC but employee negotiates different terms and works under those terms then the employer tries to use the original contract . Would the employer then be seen to accept the new conditions if he pays and allows the worker to continue in his employ under the re negotiated terms?
Rate this!
JOHN BISBY
Member - 3 posts
Can someone tell me what the expected outcome (consequences) would have been had Mr Robinson continued to work under protest or actually refused to work under the new terms?
Rate this!
Dorian Franklin
Member - 7 posts
Suppose that the change of conditions merely covered the payment date of net salaries from say the 23rd of the month to the last Friday of the respective month ? How can a management team manage to enact such a change ?
Rate this!
Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts
Im no expert Dorian but I think you would need to have some sort of collective agreement with for example the union.
If its a small workforce you could do it individually.
I find clear communication and a fair assessmant of how the change will affct each employee usually sets you on the right path.
If anyone strongly objects to the change, listen to them as they may have valid reasons for resisting.
Offer some sort of incentive, for example, a period in which the employees may rearrange thwir financial commitments i,e, direct debits and such.
Most changes will go well if they are managed effectively.
Rate this!
Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts
John,
I think the gentleman did actually work under protest and then told his employer he would not continue to do so and wanted his old terms back.
This seems to be why the ET found against him.
If he had continued to work under protest and followed the statutory grievance procedure I believe the employer would have had an opportunity to attempt to resolve the situation.
Because he then decided to refuse to work the new conditions his employer had cause to dismiss him.
Employees must adopt one or other of the 2 approaches, not both, according to this ruling.
Rate this!
Kuang Lim
Member - 24 posts
I understand that the requirement of a written employment contract is at the employee's discretion to demand one under Employment Rights Act 1996.
Concurrently, the contract is not binding even the employer insists on having it signed by the employee. The act of signing only indicates that the employee is acknowledging the receipt of the written contract, and does not indicate an acceptance of an offer.
So why changing of terms and conditions were ever considered as a binding form of agreement in this case?
0 (0)
