Change of Employment Hours

If the IT part of a position has been removed without the agreement of the person concerned then in normal circumstances it would be a breach of contract as the working conditions have changed. However, the reason stated is for welfare/workload reasons which seems to imply there is more to this case?

On a similar vein, could anyone advise if you have been working on specific activities over a period of time, which are included in your job title, i.e. IT and communications manager, is it acceptable practice for management to remove any of those activities such as the IT part, without the employees agreement, even if it is stated as for welfare/workload reasons?

I had a slightly different set of circumstances.
When I was security manager at my site I had 4 out of 8 officers who had come to an 'arrangement' between themselves.
The shifts ran 4 on 4 off 2 sets of 12 hour days and 2 sets 12 hour nights.
It suited 2 to work permanent nights, 2 to work permanent days so they worked opposite each other covering each others days/nights - this kept those who preferred it on nights and those who preferred days on days.
Great - all shifts covered and all happy then.
I issued them with letters stating that this arrangement was an agreement between them, at the time this arrangement was acceptable to the company but stated that it was a temporary arrangement that would be reviewed every 6 months. Every 6 months I spoke with them and if all still happy issued a letter to each advising it had been reviewed, could continue and also reiterated the above with a review again every 6 months.
This so I'm advised would allow me - if required - to reinstate the shift pattern as stated in the contract should I ever need to and they would have no recourse to the fact they had been working the agreed pattern for a couple of years.
For my sins I then became the FM at the site, no security manager post but some promoted to supervisors from within the the team, we also changed contractor with the troops being TUPE'd. I advised the new security company of the non contracted arrangements the team had and that I had and they should review 6 monthly.
That was 5 years ago and to my knowledge and despite several nudges from me no reviews or letters have been completed.
If I was one of the guards I'd argue implied terms should they try to now enforce my original contracted shift/pattern.
But no need - all is rosy in the garden with a supervisor on each shift and all shifts covered.
Right up until one leaves..........

Some notes on implied terms established through custom & practice:
- yes, contractual terms can be established in this way
- there is no timescale set in law but the longer "it" has been going on, the more likely it is that it becomes a contractual term
- "custom & practice" is actually quite a technical matter & much less straightforward than people often believe

If a term has been established by express or implied agreement or through custom & practice, then it can only be changed:
- if there is a valid & specific variation (e.g. "your working hours are...but we reserve the right to amend these according to business need..."). Even if there is a variation clause, if it has never been invoked in years, then it is probably worthless OR
- by agreement with employees or representative body (method according to numbers) OR
- as a last resort only and assuming there is sound business reasoning & evidence to support the proposed change, dismiss affected employees on grounds of "some other substantive reason" and offer to re-engage on the new terms. Whether this is fair or unfair will depend on the circumstances of the situation & the employers's handling of it.

If you have any doubts, best to seek legal advice for your specific situation.

Yes implied terms and conditions are legal, if they have been in force over twelve months, and you have to issue a HR1 if you cannot negociate amicable terms. If the unions are involved you must carry out consultation, and ensure that it is balloted on. In addition to all this you must ensure that is is supported by a valid business case, and justify the reson for change, this prevents any counter claim and allows you to move forward. This will depend on how many employees you have, as to how many days notice you need to consult.

There is some good informationon the ACAS website about this.

There are most definitely implied conditions in all contracts but in this particular case it is part of the CoE. You and the employee agreed to this shift pattern and i would presume that this shift pattern has been published with the employees name and hours of duty.

This link to the government website should clarify the matter for you
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_10037109

Can anyone confirm if there is such a thing as implied conditions of employment. For instance if an employee has been working on a particular shift pattern for a number of years, and these need to change to provide additional business needs, can the hours just be changed under the flexible working condition within the contract or can the employee have a legal argument that these are now implied conditions because of the length of time they have been doing them?