Employment contract change questions

ACAS, and press. Right now.

2 days is NOT a statutory consultation period. Notice the word "statutory".

They are forcing you to accept drastic changes to working terms and conditions under duress. This is illegal.

A surprising amount of large companies actually do use these kind of tactics as they're sure most people are too scared or unsure to take any action other than accept it. In reality, changing your conditions in this way is a legal minefield for them. You need to speak to a professional.
 
It is ACAS he needs to speak to as they're the experts, CAB will probably tell him to do this
 
I did wonder about the "excellent and robust" bit.

Care to give a clue on your background?
Click to expand...

Branch chair representing 4000 workers of a major international IT company plus 2 days full pay from the union for duties not related to my immediate employer (organising, training, employment tribunals etc).

Castiel said:
He is a militant union rep.
Click to expand...

That really depends on your point of view. I think I'm actually quite a conciliatory and moderate rep in the grand scheme of things - certainly compared to other reps I have contact with.

Although yourself and Dolph probably equate union = militant so it's a moot point I imagine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It sounds like you've already acceptable the new terms...

JBuk said:
Contact ACAS, they are there to help wih cases like this

Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service)

Contact point Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) Address Euston Tower
286 Euston Road
London
NW1 3JJ Phone number Helpline
08457 474 747

Switchboard 020 7210 3613
Text phone 08456 06 16 00
Website http://www.acas.org.uk

Opening Hours Monday to Friday 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, Saturday 9.00 am to 1.00 pm (helpline)
Click to expand...

I do hope you called them today, if not be on the phone to them first thing Monday.
 
amigafan2003 said:
That really depends on your point of view. I think I'm actually quite a conciliatory and moderate rep in the grand scheme of things - certainly compared to other reps I have contact with.

Although yourself and Dolph probably equate union = militant so it's a moot point I imagine.
Click to expand...

Actually I support the need for Unions, I was, until it became incompatible with my career path a member of the RMT.

Dolph and I disagree hugely on Unions and their responsibilities, our debate over the British Airways strike action and whether Unions should shoulder the cost of strike action would attest to that.

I believe that Unions are a warranted and necessary protection for the worker against unscrupulous management practices, like the case in this thread for example.

What I do not like is the refusal of some Union reps to negotiate on a level playing field or the use of militancy to further the ends of a political agenda rather than the needs of the workers they represent.

I come into contact with good and bad reps and their executives, the likes of Bob Crow for example, I can do without.

I will and do negotiate any terms with any Union as long as it is done with the best for the company and the the employee in mind, which is my overriding responsibility and should be the Unions.

Unfortunately this is not always the case, especially it seems in my sector.
 
Castiel said:
Actually I support the need for Unions, I was, until it became incompatible with my career path a member of the RMT.

Dolph and I disagree hugely on Unions and their responsibilities, our debate over the British Airways strike action and whether Unions should shoulder the cost of strike action would attest to that.

I believe that Unions are a warranted and necessary protection for the worker against unscrupulous management practices, like the case in this thread for example.

What I do not like is the refusal of some Union reps to negotiate on a level playing field or the use of militancy to further the ends of a political agenda rather than the needs of the workers they represent.

I come into contact with good and bad reps and their executives, the likes of Bob Crow for example, I can do without.

I will and do negotiate any terms with any Union as long as it is done with the best for the company and the the employee in mind, which is my overriding responsibility and should be the Unions.

Unfortunately this is not always the case, especially it seems in my sector.
Click to expand...

Well said. :D
 
horseunderwater said:
Any update on this OP?
Click to expand...

Nothing more than empty reassurances that it won't actually change anything. Which is rather far-fetched, because why would they impose such a change if they they didn't intend to change anything?

It's wait and see time.

There are also rumours of the possibility of interest-free loans to help with the loss of 3 weeks pay due to moving from week in arrears to 4 weeks in arrears(*). Local management have asked central management, but I don't know what the response is yet (if there has been a response).



* I know that strictly speaking no pay is lost, but in effect the 3 weeks are deferred until the end of the job. So it's the same thing as a loss of that pay - we still need to go 3 weeks without income and we won't get those 3 weeks back afterwards, not until we retire/resign/get made redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom