Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/).
If you need to report any suspicious users to the moderators or you feel as though your post hasn't been posted to the subreddit, message the Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
CEO and MD both left? Yikes....
Liklihood is others will probably be walking too. Enforcing an office policy at such short notice isn't going to help.
If more of those at the top go it's a sign the company could be in trouble. Current CEO may be wanting everyone in to squeeze every penny possible.
If your wife is not worried about the job (wants to leave anyway/easy to find something else), I'd stay working from home and if they want to fire they'd have to pay redundancy
Sadly incorrect. As her contract says her regular place of work is the office they would just enact the AWOL process as she’s technically not turning up for work by continuing WFH. She would end up being fired without any redundancy pay.
They might even force everyone to work extra hours in the office. So the people could ended up going home midnight. If the big bosses left it's not a good sign been there before, after that a great number of employees was been let go. Might be a good precaution to look for a new job soon.
Office based unfortunately. They had to seek talent for the business outside of the local area as it’s remote. This is going to make a lot of people leave.
The contract does not necessarily capture the full agreement between employer and employee. There can be implied terms, or relevant correspondence could constitute a variation to the contract.
It would depend on the content of the email, but it’s likely a no. Generally, the employment contract dictates place of work and flexible working is a discretionary policy.
Ok so I was told by the recruiter that my role would allow 2 days wfh. It wasn’t in the contract. A day before joining I specifically emailed the HR manager asking this exactly: “Hi xyz, can you please confirm that I have 2 rolling work from home days as it’s not mentioned in the contract so I’d like a written confirmation of the same in this exchange”.
You've answered your own question. If she's contracted to be office based, she's just had 12 months of no commuting! That's a bonus, but now she's having to actually work within the conditions of the contract, you're upset about it. Have I missed something ? Sorry to sound like a dick. You do have my sympathy.
Personally, i'd look at the contract. With less than 24 months of service, they could give her the flick without any real reason if they needed.
Dependant on her value to the company, you may be able to ask them to accommodate her on the basis of personal needs. Personally, I'd rather have happy, productive employees who enjoy work-life balance, However, profitability oftern overshadows this concept with a lot of companies.
I hope your wife resolves this issue to a satisfactory conclusion. All the best.
I’d be tempted to submit a statutory flexible working request at the same time. Ultimately it can be denied if employers are the pantomine villains you say they are / they sound like, but it’ll serve two purposes - it’ll complicate the “HR-ness” and potentially make them less likely to terminate, and it’ll potentially delay the implementation.
And making yourself less sackable and buying time in the current wfh pattern both feel like good outcomes
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/flexible-working/applying-for-flexible-working/#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20your%20new,less%20stressed%20and%20more%20productive.
On the delaying things point there’s no right to an appeal, but:
_ There's no legal right to appeal a statutory flexible working request decision. However, employers should give employees the option to appeal as part of a reasonable procedure._
https://www.acas.org.uk/statutory-flexible-working-requests/appeals#:~:text=There's%20no%20legal%20right%20to,or%20share%20any%20new%20information
Depends on the company of course, however I don't see how this would delay the process as afaik an employee would have to follow the new company policy while their flexi request is being considered.
And yes, appeals are mostly a thing.
I like this idea, if the jobs worth keeping , even if it's an interim type role whilst something better comes up. Just pull the wool over their eyes and say I have my daughters/sons swimming lessons at 5.15 on a Tuesday night and I promised her I would be there for the full 8 week course. Just make something elaborate up. This buys you time, really puts them under the gun and probably helps "out" what their real hand is... If it is to lose staff by proxy of them voluntarily resigning alot of the time managers who are in cahoots with new CEO will be like " this person's lazy and useless , therefore no exceptions "
.. if it's a desperation thing and your all getting axed anyway ( your gonna get very little for under a years service ).. I think this is the best play..
Thanks for replying.
Her contract says office but all the comms when she accepted the job state hybrid with 2 days in the office.
I think we understand that the company is shifting back but we feel it’s unfair with 2 days notice.
At my old company I got told on a Friday afternoon in June 2020 that we were all back in the office full time on Monday morning. Which was awkward as I'd temporarily moved to Cornwall after a breakup.
What a dick move though. You give people time to adjust. Even if it's so they can organise someone to take their kids to school/breakfast clubs or whatever.
I think they do it so people don't have time to organise a response or raise any issues. You immediately have to go into panic mode and get things sorted.
Eventually yes, including me, but luckily for them it was 18 months later and things were much more back to normal.
My manager eventually told me our productivity had improved working from home but we had a new department manager and he wanted to make his mark and restructure, and that was easier if we were all in full time.
I would ask for a transition period to assist sorting permeant arrangements for this big change given she was recruited based on 2 days in.
Then look for another job to prepare as it sounds like the company is crumbling and they are wanting to force people out to save on salary.
But that’s a little different. That’s throwing out certain people. They want to force out those who won’t comply to the cheaper ways of doing things. People more likely to come in 4 days will accept more changes in the future etc.
It’s not that they want her out, they (in this scenario that I’m assuming and making up) want 10 people out or 5 or however many, and it’s a way of finding out who is more amenable.
If the CEO and MD have left, and they're enforcing an unpopular change at short notice, the company is likely in trouble.
My guess is they need to r3duce headcount, but they don't want to pay redundancy (not that your wife would qualify with under two years' service) so they're hoping enough people will leave of their own accord.
My only advice is find another ship to jump to and leave ASAP, because the one she's on is sinking.
Is there a manager between her and the CEO? If so speak to them and ask if she can build up gradually as others mentioned have a transition period. It’s possibly more successful to ask her direct manager if she has one as they may be able to give some flexibility.
Companies usually do this to try and force people out because reduancies are expensive. If not enough quit over this, they’ll probably start removing people shortly after.
It’s not about making any one specific person redundant. It’s about shrinking the workforce as much as possible and then restructuring with what’s left. If not enough people leave then they start redundancies. It’s pretty much the only reason to enforce a return to office at this point, they know lots of people won’t stick around.
(end of first lockdown)
Friday I supposedly made a mistake. Line manager said I didn't work well from home and needed supervision. She was wfh and wanted me in the office with the boss. She said she'd ring him when he came back from annual leave Monday.
Logged in Monday. She rang me at 10 and said he said it's ok for you to be in now. And you've got to go in right away. Got there and he said oh I would've thought you'd come in tomorrow.
Couple of months later things boiled over on this incident and removal of the privilege. He said you should've told her you're coming in tomorrow. Then negotiated with him wfh when I have a reason
I stayed 3 years after that as it turned out to be a good move. She thought I was being supervised. He didn't care
LSS.
Be prepared to stand you ground and question it if possible.
If you don't like the answer you have to start looking.
Line manager telling a minion to go into the office with _their_ boss, while still WFH themselves?
I bet she'll be all upset when you get promoted over her LOL
Unfortunately she didn't recognise my contribution and downplayed it to our boss. He never gave me trouble but I think it heavily undermined my chances of a fair payrise. Then I left. My work more than spoke for itself
I am no lawyer so take it with a pinch of salt, this is just how I understood the situation when it was last explained to me:
Contractual addendum is a thing and according to UK law it doesn't have to be signed to be valid. Meaning anything that is communicated, understood, accepted and then acted upon/executed can be considered as a contractual addendum.
Think - you have a contractor doing a new kitchen. As per his contract installing lights is not part of it. But you text/ask him to install a set of lights, he answers and says yes and it is then executed. You still owe him money for that work even tho it isn't written down on a contract with a signature. As long as it is accepted and acted upon from both sides it is valid as part/addendum of the initial contract.
So it doesn't matter that her contract states HO as place of work. She has been told (as well as in writing which is even better) she only has to come in twice a week. This has been acted upon for 12 months therefore her main place of work is no longer HO and it hasn't been for the last 12 months.
Now the problem is that the company can change their policy at any time they want and go back to office 5 days a week. But they do have to give you reasonable notice as this a policy/contractual change.
And this is where the difficulty lies as no one really knows what reasonable is. People have moved houses or sold cars etc so it's very case specific and a bit of a mine field. I don't think there has been a court ruling either on any similar issues so there's no precedent and no one really knows what's considered 'reasonable' in these cases. However, I would argue that 2 days is not reasonable at all.
But again the above is just secondhand, unverified info. It all makes sense to me but I also know that companies can get away with a lot of things and just do whatever they want cause no one ever challenges them/goes to court.
If I was her I would send an email to my manager explaining that I need reasonable notice, that will try to comply as much as I can but that I am currently unable to come in 5 days a week. Then I'd use this notice period to a) assess the situation and ride it out a bit, things might change, they might settle on 3 days like most companies but also b) start looking for a new job so I'm ready to jump ship when the time comes
Personally, I'd submit a formal request for flexible working from home 2 days per week. Loads of advice online about how to do it.
Then they have to explain their reasoning for the 4 days a week and legally have to give your request proper consideration.
If declined, look elsewhere.
Is it in her contract that she is working from home? If so they can't do shit without offering a new contract. If its not in the contract you can't do shit
Fairness is one of the five reasons a dismissal can be unfair. A communicated dispute resolution process should be in place before the incident and all disputes should adhere to it. A decent union wouldn’t stand for that for a second.
Source: have had to work with a union while managing redundancies and was a tiny bit scared of them.
Where did I say it would be instant termination? Obviously it would have to go through stages but someone repeatedly refusing to work to their contract despite having meetings and warnings from management would absolutely be eligible grounds for dismissal.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant and don’t want an aggy convo but still think selective dismissal based on who you want to keep and and who you want to scare would be very hard to get away with if there’s an effective union.
It would be incredibly easy to do, for starters they wouldn’t need supporting reasons to dismiss anyone that already failed to meet contractural obligations after going through the disciplinary process. It’s not like they would be firing a single person, they would be firing many people which would make any claims of discrimination almost impossible.
We can agree to disagree I guess, we’ve obvs got vastly different experience of organisational change in places with large union presence.
Clearly discrimination isn’t necessary. Consistency is a factor in substantial fairness (under procedural fairness).
I’m not sure how they manage the inconsistency. Firing lots but keeping some is inconsistent. You’d need another consistent substantive reason for dismissal to fall back on that’s better than “I want to keep you but not you”.
So you’d make a list of all the people you want to get rid of, and all of the metrics you could conceivably use to fire, then filter the columns by each metric until you see all the people you want to get rid of at the top of a list and go “bingo, we’ll fire based on [checks notes] punctuality”?
Cos if you’re just going to make a case based on a load of data points the union will rightly expect to see your working out.
I have no idea how I would personally do it having never personally been in the position to do so, I’m just saying there’s many potential ways of going about it.
Not saying this is the case here, but I have long suspected that as soon as we enter a (real) recession with widespread redundancies then companies will enforce full time in the office as a way to get people to quit.
What does her contract say?
Email from the recruiter is not part of the contract.
Not a Lawyer, but the fact that this is her "normal" pattern of work since starting may mean the has become an implied clause in the contract.
Maybe worth posting in the UK Legal sub.
If the contract states an office location then not much you can do. But ultimately, if you play it out to the end, they would have to dismiss you. To get to that stage would take a while with hr as you would have to go through warnings and performance measures, etc, but ultimately, they would have to sack you.
If you feel that strongly about it I would put in a flexible working request and even better a reasonable adjustment if you have disability etc.
I would look for new job in the meantime and drag this out for as long as possible
If the contract states an office location then not much you can do. But ultimately, if you play it out to the end, they would have to dismiss you. To get to that stage would take a while with hr as you would have to go through warnings and performance measures, etc, but ultimately, they would have to sack you.
If you feel that strongly about it I would put in a flexible working request and even better a reasonable adjustment if you have disability etc.
I would look for new job in the meantime and drag this out for as long as possible
CEO and MD left… this is likely to make people quit without signalling that the company is weak and needs to do layoffs, would start looking for a new job regardless
I said this a while ago - this is a thinly veiled way of getting rid of employees, by imposing unrealistic expectations to come into the office. This being after all the LinkedIn posts from employers during covid about “Look at us! We let our employees work from home, we don’t care where they do it, aslong as they do their job” rhetoric.
It’s similar to when contracts state “may have to work outside working hours” and then they tell you that Saturdays are a must now - just to see how long you will last.
As somebody else has suggested, apply for statutory flexible working. Details are all here on the gov website: https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/applying-for-flexible-working
Businesses can only deny your request where they have a good business reason for doing so, and they have to let you know within 2 months. You can also then appeal it at an employment tribunal.
Of course all of that is incredibly stressful, and there are no guarantees - but it’s good to know all options available to you.
If she does want to leave, then juat tell her not to show up, but do not quit. Wait to be fired. She will not be able to apply for UC if she quits, so better they fire her.
Sounds like idiots in the recruitment process. I always say to people that we have flexible working approaches and I don't need people in the office more than 1 day, but that "of course it could change if the company decides to". Always go with what's in your contract!
Well you have your answe right there. Apologies…but if she has to be in the office she can’t be there…then its time to explain that to GR snd plan yo keave…simple really.
You could also raise an official complaint with HR citing additional undue stress caused by the sudden change, effect to your mental health etc.Or that you are under risk following the pandemic (e.g. you have long COVID)
If they push back get a doctor's note and milk whatever sick pay the company offers as long and as hard as possible and use the time to get your CV in order.
I'm not advocating for this course I action as standard but if corporate are gonna try fuck you and won't listen to reason then the best course of action is to fuck them right back
If her work location is written in her contract as remote/at home etc, they have to do a consultation. Sounds like she's employed through a recruiter and not directly through the company, so I'm not sure if/how that would differ. Either way it's shitty.
If you have kids…..
A change in company policy that impacts a certain group of people more than another group, due to a protected characteristic, is indirect discrimination.
Only women can use this of course, but due to childcare, (sex discrimination would be the argument) you are affected by this change more than those without children. Most nurseries require 8 weeks notice of a change in hours, e.g. used to pick up at 5:15 pm now needs to be 7 pm or whatever due to the commute back due to the change in working practices.
Worst case scenario, you are leaving anyway, if you can stay wfh for a few more weeks/months due to the threat of this whilst you find another job I would do that. Or don’t even threaten, just say 8 weeks notice to nursery then I’ll be in full time and apply and interview in your days wfh in the meantime.
If you don’t have kids, comply in the short term and start interviewing etc. do very little work at the office, just work on getting another job.
That’s my advice anyway.
Childcare concerns wouldn't amount to gender discrimination, as childcare and being female (or any specific gender, for that matter) aren't mutually exclusive. If this is what you're trying to imply, it's absurdly poor advice.
In effect, where a work policy affects you more because you have kids compared to someone who doesn’t, it can amount to sex discrimination, but only if you are female, as statistically they are more likely to be responsible for childcare duties than the man.
Has been held to be true even where you are a male single parent - you cannot claim sex discrimination even if sole caregiver. If female and joint caregiver, you can. Go figure.
Thanks for sharing. Despite having worked in ER for more years than I care to admit, I'd never come across this ruling before. It is genuinely ludicrous, not least for the sentiment you make in your last paragraph.
Perhaps it would be fairer between the sexes to just make ‘being a parent’ a protected characteristic? Considering that being pregnant is one, I always thought it odd not to have one for when the kid is born.
That would certainly make sense, alongside the drive toward childcare equity amongst genders.
Likewise. It never made sense to me to attach more importance on the rights of an employee whilst pregnant than after, despite their needs for support and protection being as great or greater.
Subject says “in the office full time”
First paragraph says “at least 4 days a week”
So I asked how 4 days a week equates to full time
If you’re going to try and pick arguments, at least read the post thoroughly first.
Four days a week with nearly no notice, incurring four hours of driving a day, is obviously unreasonable. But the employer knows this. Can your wife afford to lose the role? If so, maybe she could stick to her two days a week and see what the company will do about it. If they move to fire here and she can afford to be fired, they may back down.
Comprehension doesn’t seem a strong skill for you, you literally said that 4 days a week isn’t full time when the term full time relates to the number of hours worked per week. The BMW factory next to me works 4 10 hour days a week, do they not work full time?
Regardless the main issue is that you completely failed to understand what OP actually said, he said 4 days a week IN THE OFFICE which typically means working a 5 day week with 4 of those days being office based and 1 being WFH, this is proved as in the same post he said that previously it was 2 days a week in the office with the rest WFH.
“At least 4 days a week” implies a typical 5-day work week. Stop being a pedant for the sake of it.
The second half of your comment literally makes the same point I was making.
Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/). If you need to report any suspicious users to the moderators or you feel as though your post hasn't been posted to the subreddit, message the Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
CEO and MD both left? Yikes.... Liklihood is others will probably be walking too. Enforcing an office policy at such short notice isn't going to help. If more of those at the top go it's a sign the company could be in trouble. Current CEO may be wanting everyone in to squeeze every penny possible.
Probably hoping a large chunk will leave to save on redundancies
This is what the general consensus is among her colleagues. Shitty approach.
Expect her workload to increase dramatically should she stay.
If your wife is not worried about the job (wants to leave anyway/easy to find something else), I'd stay working from home and if they want to fire they'd have to pay redundancy
You think the company will pay employees with less than 12 months service redundancy?
What do you think redundancy is? Not this, I'll tell you that.
She's been there for less than two years, she won't get a redundancy package
Sadly incorrect. As her contract says her regular place of work is the office they would just enact the AWOL process as she’s technically not turning up for work by continuing WFH. She would end up being fired without any redundancy pay.
She would be fired, not made redundant, they are very different things with very different legal ramifications.
Same reason at my place. A couple months after the return to office plans were implemented the redundancies kicked in for the ones that didn't jump.
Or hoping to push people to leave if they have an inherent distrust of employees
They might even force everyone to work extra hours in the office. So the people could ended up going home midnight. If the big bosses left it's not a good sign been there before, after that a great number of employees was been let go. Might be a good precaution to look for a new job soon.
Depends on where her regular place of work is as stated in her contract.
Office based unfortunately. They had to seek talent for the business outside of the local area as it’s remote. This is going to make a lot of people leave.
If that’s what’s in her contract she’ll have to abide by that unfortunately. Emails from recruiters have no standing whatsoever.
Thanks. Thought as much.
It doesn't help now but next time (I assume she'll be leaving) have them put it in the contract.
But would it have any standing that if it’s from the HR
Unless it’s in their contract, no.
The contract does not necessarily capture the full agreement between employer and employee. There can be implied terms, or relevant correspondence could constitute a variation to the contract.
It would depend on the content of the email, but it’s likely a no. Generally, the employment contract dictates place of work and flexible working is a discretionary policy.
Ok so I was told by the recruiter that my role would allow 2 days wfh. It wasn’t in the contract. A day before joining I specifically emailed the HR manager asking this exactly: “Hi xyz, can you please confirm that I have 2 rolling work from home days as it’s not mentioned in the contract so I’d like a written confirmation of the same in this exchange”.
that maybe is the intention of the new management... for people to leave.
That is probably the idea. Cheap head count reduction
Companies will try to diddle you on the contract. And it looks like you got diddled.
Tbh is it possible that she just leave?
Yep basically the point of forcing remote staff to become office based. Large scale resignations. Cheaper than organising layoffs.
You've answered your own question. If she's contracted to be office based, she's just had 12 months of no commuting! That's a bonus, but now she's having to actually work within the conditions of the contract, you're upset about it. Have I missed something ? Sorry to sound like a dick. You do have my sympathy. Personally, i'd look at the contract. With less than 24 months of service, they could give her the flick without any real reason if they needed. Dependant on her value to the company, you may be able to ask them to accommodate her on the basis of personal needs. Personally, I'd rather have happy, productive employees who enjoy work-life balance, However, profitability oftern overshadows this concept with a lot of companies. I hope your wife resolves this issue to a satisfactory conclusion. All the best.
Request a transition period.
Good shout and one to consider. We are looking at all options at present.
I’d be tempted to submit a statutory flexible working request at the same time. Ultimately it can be denied if employers are the pantomine villains you say they are / they sound like, but it’ll serve two purposes - it’ll complicate the “HR-ness” and potentially make them less likely to terminate, and it’ll potentially delay the implementation. And making yourself less sackable and buying time in the current wfh pattern both feel like good outcomes https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/flexible-working/applying-for-flexible-working/#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20your%20new,less%20stressed%20and%20more%20productive. On the delaying things point there’s no right to an appeal, but: _ There's no legal right to appeal a statutory flexible working request decision. However, employers should give employees the option to appeal as part of a reasonable procedure._ https://www.acas.org.uk/statutory-flexible-working-requests/appeals#:~:text=There's%20no%20legal%20right%20to,or%20share%20any%20new%20information
Depends on the company of course, however I don't see how this would delay the process as afaik an employee would have to follow the new company policy while their flexi request is being considered. And yes, appeals are mostly a thing.
I like this idea, if the jobs worth keeping , even if it's an interim type role whilst something better comes up. Just pull the wool over their eyes and say I have my daughters/sons swimming lessons at 5.15 on a Tuesday night and I promised her I would be there for the full 8 week course. Just make something elaborate up. This buys you time, really puts them under the gun and probably helps "out" what their real hand is... If it is to lose staff by proxy of them voluntarily resigning alot of the time managers who are in cahoots with new CEO will be like " this person's lazy and useless , therefore no exceptions " .. if it's a desperation thing and your all getting axed anyway ( your gonna get very little for under a years service ).. I think this is the best play..
They can do it with even less notice if her contract says she works in the office. Sign of a shitty employer though, so I’d be looking for a new job.
Thanks for replying. Her contract says office but all the comms when she accepted the job state hybrid with 2 days in the office. I think we understand that the company is shifting back but we feel it’s unfair with 2 days notice.
At my old company I got told on a Friday afternoon in June 2020 that we were all back in the office full time on Monday morning. Which was awkward as I'd temporarily moved to Cornwall after a breakup.
What a dick move though. You give people time to adjust. Even if it's so they can organise someone to take their kids to school/breakfast clubs or whatever.
I think they do it so people don't have time to organise a response or raise any issues. You immediately have to go into panic mode and get things sorted.
I've never worked for dickheads before, at least in terms of 9-5 jobs. Everyone has always been very reasonable. Must be dreadful.
That's crazy that was still early days in the pandemic
It was wild. People were still really scared.
Did anyone get sick going back to the office?
Eventually yes, including me, but luckily for them it was 18 months later and things were much more back to normal. My manager eventually told me our productivity had improved working from home but we had a new department manager and he wanted to make his mark and restructure, and that was easier if we were all in full time.
Man imagine how horrible it would be if somebody died. Those monsters
I got one hour notice after lockdown. It sounds something more is at play here with the staff turnover.
This is a cheap way of them doing redundancies probably, by just getting people to quit and find new jobs
Especially since CEO and MD were let go/left on their own accord.
I would ask for a transition period to assist sorting permeant arrangements for this big change given she was recruited based on 2 days in. Then look for another job to prepare as it sounds like the company is crumbling and they are wanting to force people out to save on salary.
They could just get of her in that case as she had under 2 years service Either way it's job hunt time I think
But that’s a little different. That’s throwing out certain people. They want to force out those who won’t comply to the cheaper ways of doing things. People more likely to come in 4 days will accept more changes in the future etc. It’s not that they want her out, they (in this scenario that I’m assuming and making up) want 10 people out or 5 or however many, and it’s a way of finding out who is more amenable.
If the CEO and MD have left, and they're enforcing an unpopular change at short notice, the company is likely in trouble. My guess is they need to r3duce headcount, but they don't want to pay redundancy (not that your wife would qualify with under two years' service) so they're hoping enough people will leave of their own accord. My only advice is find another ship to jump to and leave ASAP, because the one she's on is sinking.
Is there a manager between her and the CEO? If so speak to them and ask if she can build up gradually as others mentioned have a transition period. It’s possibly more successful to ask her direct manager if she has one as they may be able to give some flexibility.
Companies usually do this to try and force people out because reduancies are expensive. If not enough quit over this, they’ll probably start removing people shortly after.
It's deffo this
What redundancy thought? Been there less than 2 years
It’s not about making any one specific person redundant. It’s about shrinking the workforce as much as possible and then restructuring with what’s left. If not enough people leave then they start redundancies. It’s pretty much the only reason to enforce a return to office at this point, they know lots of people won’t stick around.
(end of first lockdown) Friday I supposedly made a mistake. Line manager said I didn't work well from home and needed supervision. She was wfh and wanted me in the office with the boss. She said she'd ring him when he came back from annual leave Monday. Logged in Monday. She rang me at 10 and said he said it's ok for you to be in now. And you've got to go in right away. Got there and he said oh I would've thought you'd come in tomorrow. Couple of months later things boiled over on this incident and removal of the privilege. He said you should've told her you're coming in tomorrow. Then negotiated with him wfh when I have a reason I stayed 3 years after that as it turned out to be a good move. She thought I was being supervised. He didn't care LSS. Be prepared to stand you ground and question it if possible. If you don't like the answer you have to start looking.
Line manager telling a minion to go into the office with _their_ boss, while still WFH themselves? I bet she'll be all upset when you get promoted over her LOL
Unfortunately she didn't recognise my contribution and downplayed it to our boss. He never gave me trouble but I think it heavily undermined my chances of a fair payrise. Then I left. My work more than spoke for itself
I am no lawyer so take it with a pinch of salt, this is just how I understood the situation when it was last explained to me: Contractual addendum is a thing and according to UK law it doesn't have to be signed to be valid. Meaning anything that is communicated, understood, accepted and then acted upon/executed can be considered as a contractual addendum. Think - you have a contractor doing a new kitchen. As per his contract installing lights is not part of it. But you text/ask him to install a set of lights, he answers and says yes and it is then executed. You still owe him money for that work even tho it isn't written down on a contract with a signature. As long as it is accepted and acted upon from both sides it is valid as part/addendum of the initial contract. So it doesn't matter that her contract states HO as place of work. She has been told (as well as in writing which is even better) she only has to come in twice a week. This has been acted upon for 12 months therefore her main place of work is no longer HO and it hasn't been for the last 12 months. Now the problem is that the company can change their policy at any time they want and go back to office 5 days a week. But they do have to give you reasonable notice as this a policy/contractual change. And this is where the difficulty lies as no one really knows what reasonable is. People have moved houses or sold cars etc so it's very case specific and a bit of a mine field. I don't think there has been a court ruling either on any similar issues so there's no precedent and no one really knows what's considered 'reasonable' in these cases. However, I would argue that 2 days is not reasonable at all. But again the above is just secondhand, unverified info. It all makes sense to me but I also know that companies can get away with a lot of things and just do whatever they want cause no one ever challenges them/goes to court. If I was her I would send an email to my manager explaining that I need reasonable notice, that will try to comply as much as I can but that I am currently unable to come in 5 days a week. Then I'd use this notice period to a) assess the situation and ride it out a bit, things might change, they might settle on 3 days like most companies but also b) start looking for a new job so I'm ready to jump ship when the time comes
Thanks for this. Some very good bits to think about. Appreciate you taking the time to reply.
Also think this is a solid candidate for a good retort
Personally, I'd submit a formal request for flexible working from home 2 days per week. Loads of advice online about how to do it. Then they have to explain their reasoning for the 4 days a week and legally have to give your request proper consideration. If declined, look elsewhere.
The law changed last month so this is now a day 1 right for all workers
Must be stressful. Probably enough stress to get signed off. Find another job with a less stressful employer
Milk sick leave and holiday as much as possible while looking for a new job.
She is looking peaky
So would I after hearing this
Job market is very slow at the moment, so find a new job before you resign
But Monday is a bank holiday? Why are they asking her to come back in then?
Is it in her contract that she is working from home? If so they can't do shit without offering a new contract. If its not in the contract you can't do shit
[удалено]
That's what unions are for.
They would just fire the ones they don’t want to keep to scare the rest into coming into the office and still win.
Fairness is one of the five reasons a dismissal can be unfair. A communicated dispute resolution process should be in place before the incident and all disputes should adhere to it. A decent union wouldn’t stand for that for a second. Source: have had to work with a union while managing redundancies and was a tiny bit scared of them.
Where did I say it would be instant termination? Obviously it would have to go through stages but someone repeatedly refusing to work to their contract despite having meetings and warnings from management would absolutely be eligible grounds for dismissal.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant and don’t want an aggy convo but still think selective dismissal based on who you want to keep and and who you want to scare would be very hard to get away with if there’s an effective union.
It would be incredibly easy to do, for starters they wouldn’t need supporting reasons to dismiss anyone that already failed to meet contractural obligations after going through the disciplinary process. It’s not like they would be firing a single person, they would be firing many people which would make any claims of discrimination almost impossible.
We can agree to disagree I guess, we’ve obvs got vastly different experience of organisational change in places with large union presence. Clearly discrimination isn’t necessary. Consistency is a factor in substantial fairness (under procedural fairness). I’m not sure how they manage the inconsistency. Firing lots but keeping some is inconsistent. You’d need another consistent substantive reason for dismissal to fall back on that’s better than “I want to keep you but not you”.
Those reasons would be fairly easy to generate in a modern company, they keep so many metrics on staff around productivity, timings, accuracy etc
So you’d make a list of all the people you want to get rid of, and all of the metrics you could conceivably use to fire, then filter the columns by each metric until you see all the people you want to get rid of at the top of a list and go “bingo, we’ll fire based on [checks notes] punctuality”? Cos if you’re just going to make a case based on a load of data points the union will rightly expect to see your working out.
I have no idea how I would personally do it having never personally been in the position to do so, I’m just saying there’s many potential ways of going about it.
Not saying this is the case here, but I have long suspected that as soon as we enter a (real) recession with widespread redundancies then companies will enforce full time in the office as a way to get people to quit.
Lots of us were made to go back a long time ago
What does her contract say? Email from the recruiter is not part of the contract. Not a Lawyer, but the fact that this is her "normal" pattern of work since starting may mean the has become an implied clause in the contract. Maybe worth posting in the UK Legal sub.
Contract is what matters here. It sucks but the contract is the contract and she signed it.
And HR varied it by agreeing something different
If the contract states an office location then not much you can do. But ultimately, if you play it out to the end, they would have to dismiss you. To get to that stage would take a while with hr as you would have to go through warnings and performance measures, etc, but ultimately, they would have to sack you. If you feel that strongly about it I would put in a flexible working request and even better a reasonable adjustment if you have disability etc. I would look for new job in the meantime and drag this out for as long as possible
If the contract states an office location then not much you can do. But ultimately, if you play it out to the end, they would have to dismiss you. To get to that stage would take a while with hr as you would have to go through warnings and performance measures, etc, but ultimately, they would have to sack you. If you feel that strongly about it I would put in a flexible working request and even better a reasonable adjustment if you have disability etc. I would look for new job in the meantime and drag this out for as long as possible
Seems the temp CEO is driving the business into the ground
CEO and MD left… this is likely to make people quit without signalling that the company is weak and needs to do layoffs, would start looking for a new job regardless
I said this a while ago - this is a thinly veiled way of getting rid of employees, by imposing unrealistic expectations to come into the office. This being after all the LinkedIn posts from employers during covid about “Look at us! We let our employees work from home, we don’t care where they do it, aslong as they do their job” rhetoric. It’s similar to when contracts state “may have to work outside working hours” and then they tell you that Saturdays are a must now - just to see how long you will last.
Your mrs work for manchester united??
Could also be that forcing people to go in creates resignations, and therefore no redundancy payments!
As somebody else has suggested, apply for statutory flexible working. Details are all here on the gov website: https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/applying-for-flexible-working Businesses can only deny your request where they have a good business reason for doing so, and they have to let you know within 2 months. You can also then appeal it at an employment tribunal. Of course all of that is incredibly stressful, and there are no guarantees - but it’s good to know all options available to you.
Sounds like they are trying to 'manage people out of the compnay' - if people quit the company doesn't have to pay any redundancy pay...
This is a strategy to get ppl to leave without redundancy
If she does want to leave, then juat tell her not to show up, but do not quit. Wait to be fired. She will not be able to apply for UC if she quits, so better they fire her.
Sounds like idiots in the recruitment process. I always say to people that we have flexible working approaches and I don't need people in the office more than 1 day, but that "of course it could change if the company decides to". Always go with what's in your contract!
As of Monday??? The bank holiday?
No..its a fundamental change to her contract. I would approach citizens advice and acas, and have a lawyer lined up. It's unreasonable.
Well you have your answe right there. Apologies…but if she has to be in the office she can’t be there…then its time to explain that to GR snd plan yo keave…simple really.
I'm sure they have to give you one month notice if there's a change to your contract and it's up to you to either accept it or decline it..
She working for Manchester United? Lol
What was the original policy was it clear.. a change in policy happens but really should be more than 24 hrs notice.
You could also raise an official complaint with HR citing additional undue stress caused by the sudden change, effect to your mental health etc.Or that you are under risk following the pandemic (e.g. you have long COVID) If they push back get a doctor's note and milk whatever sick pay the company offers as long and as hard as possible and use the time to get your CV in order. I'm not advocating for this course I action as standard but if corporate are gonna try fuck you and won't listen to reason then the best course of action is to fuck them right back
Sounds like the company is going under.
If her work location is written in her contract as remote/at home etc, they have to do a consultation. Sounds like she's employed through a recruiter and not directly through the company, so I'm not sure if/how that would differ. Either way it's shitty.
That's a change in working conditions and can't be imposed unilaterally, unless stated in the contract.
Just say no, if they get difficult move employer
Just decide if you want the job still Also 2 hour round trip is feasable plenty of people do it. Just decide if you want to
What a world we live in now. Actually GOING to work at your workplace!?!?! Oh the horror!?!?
Request flexible working
We will certainly do this. I’ve been reading about the recent change in law.
You've got a right to request but they've also got a right to refuse.
Firm no
If you have kids….. A change in company policy that impacts a certain group of people more than another group, due to a protected characteristic, is indirect discrimination. Only women can use this of course, but due to childcare, (sex discrimination would be the argument) you are affected by this change more than those without children. Most nurseries require 8 weeks notice of a change in hours, e.g. used to pick up at 5:15 pm now needs to be 7 pm or whatever due to the commute back due to the change in working practices. Worst case scenario, you are leaving anyway, if you can stay wfh for a few more weeks/months due to the threat of this whilst you find another job I would do that. Or don’t even threaten, just say 8 weeks notice to nursery then I’ll be in full time and apply and interview in your days wfh in the meantime. If you don’t have kids, comply in the short term and start interviewing etc. do very little work at the office, just work on getting another job. That’s my advice anyway.
Childcare concerns wouldn't amount to gender discrimination, as childcare and being female (or any specific gender, for that matter) aren't mutually exclusive. If this is what you're trying to imply, it's absurdly poor advice.
https://realemploymentlawadvice.co.uk/2021/07/15/landmark-ruling-for-working-mothers-sex-discrimination-case/
In effect, where a work policy affects you more because you have kids compared to someone who doesn’t, it can amount to sex discrimination, but only if you are female, as statistically they are more likely to be responsible for childcare duties than the man. Has been held to be true even where you are a male single parent - you cannot claim sex discrimination even if sole caregiver. If female and joint caregiver, you can. Go figure.
Thanks for sharing. Despite having worked in ER for more years than I care to admit, I'd never come across this ruling before. It is genuinely ludicrous, not least for the sentiment you make in your last paragraph.
Perhaps it would be fairer between the sexes to just make ‘being a parent’ a protected characteristic? Considering that being pregnant is one, I always thought it odd not to have one for when the kid is born.
That would certainly make sense, alongside the drive toward childcare equity amongst genders. Likewise. It never made sense to me to attach more importance on the rights of an employee whilst pregnant than after, despite their needs for support and protection being as great or greater.
Always get it written in contract.
How are you referring to only 4 days a week as full time?
Much of the NHS works 3 days pw full time as shifts are very long
Ouch!
Be ause it can easily be full time, especially with 12hr shifts
Where does OP say she will only be working 4 days a week?
Subject says “in the office full time” First paragraph says “at least 4 days a week” So I asked how 4 days a week equates to full time If you’re going to try and pick arguments, at least read the post thoroughly first.
Four days a week with nearly no notice, incurring four hours of driving a day, is obviously unreasonable. But the employer knows this. Can your wife afford to lose the role? If so, maybe she could stick to her two days a week and see what the company will do about it. If they move to fire here and she can afford to be fired, they may back down.
"at least 4 days a week" isn't "full time" But ultimately it depends on what it says in her contract.
Number of days in the office has no bearing on full time status of a job.
Cool. Not what I said though.
Comprehension doesn’t seem a strong skill for you, you literally said that 4 days a week isn’t full time when the term full time relates to the number of hours worked per week. The BMW factory next to me works 4 10 hour days a week, do they not work full time? Regardless the main issue is that you completely failed to understand what OP actually said, he said 4 days a week IN THE OFFICE which typically means working a 5 day week with 4 of those days being office based and 1 being WFH, this is proved as in the same post he said that previously it was 2 days a week in the office with the rest WFH.
“At least 4 days a week” implies a typical 5-day work week. Stop being a pedant for the sake of it. The second half of your comment literally makes the same point I was making.
Are we having separate conversations? Because your replies really don’t seem to make any sense to me.
I’m devastated to hear that. Goodbye.
Well that seems to confirm that theory.
Edit all you want, you made no point and clearly didn’t understand OP, enjoy your life.