Little bit of background information first in case it helps…

Our small company of 5 have recently merged with a couple more one man outfits and have moved into new premises which we share with a bunch of our sub-contractors, our two original directors becoming joint directors of the new merged company.

We’ve just entered consultancy with new contracts being offered on slightly less favourable terms, the main points being a longer working day is proposed by introducing a 1 hour lunch break that I don’t currently have (or want) and a reduction of holiday. With no adjustment to remuneration.

Holiday aside (more on that to follow) is it reasonable to expect a increase in salary to compensate for committing an extra hour of my day? Albeit that hour will be taken as lunch, where I will not leave the office and will in all likelihood end up answering the phone or eventually working through.

The difference in holiday is primarily the Christmas break, our previous contract stated that Christmas was in addition to our 33 days “at the company’s discretion” whereas we will now have to take these compulsory days from our 33 day allowance.

I’m fully prepared to refuse the contract on these grounds in the hope that they are prepared to compromise and are not just fulfilling their obligation to consult.

I just want to get a feeling that I’m being reasonable about it (typing that and reading it back I feel I have strong case).

main points being a longer working day is proposed by introducing a 1 hour lunch break

That doesn’t sound like an increase in the number of working hours so I wouldn’t have thought that a salary increase was reasonable, no. If you choose to work through your lunch rather than taking a break then that is up to you.

On the holiday thing, if it was specifically stated that it was at the companies discretion then I don’t think that you have much of a case there either.

Sounds strange – consultation should have taken place before transfer of ownership, not after it, plus If the change of holidays is connected with the transfer, then that would be a breach of TUPE.

If it’s a small company can you not just have this discussion with the owner? Contractually we are entitled to a 1 hour break, but nobody takes it meaning you can keep your normal hours.

Take your lunch in the first/last hour of the working day?

That doesn’t sound like an increase in the number of working hours so I wouldn’t have thought that a salary increase was reasonable, no. If you choose to work through your lunch rather than taking a break then that is up to you.

Yep, that’s kind of what I expected but was wondering if my argument may carry any weight. Their reason for extending the hours to 5pm is for phone coverage (despite that there is a cat in hells chance of me picking the phone up during my break if they enforce the hours) and for parity with future employees, despite that anyone with dependents will be allowed flexibility.

On the holiday thing, if it was specifically stated that it was at the companies discretion then I don’t think that you have much of a case there either.

Also understood, it still amounts to less favourable terms considering the companies discretion generally amounted to a few additional days.

The whole proposal is weighted towards the company with no apparent compromise.

Curiousyellow, I will be taking the discussion but wanted to get a feel for whether I’m being reasonable or not.

I like your thinking Tom, can’t see them agreeing to it though!

33 days holiday? Do you have to book bank holidays off as holiday or are they given for free? If so then Id just suck it up and book Xmas off, most only get 25 days to play with.

With your lunch hour, as above, just dont work through it, leave the office or something, then you arent working any more hours than before. It all sounds like ‘normal’ work conditions and before you had better than average benefits.

The whole proposal is weighted towards the company with no apparent compromise.

What a surprise eh

Is it a TUPE transfer or a merger

If TUPE they cannot do this – in general they can and you could claim unfair dismissal but they do need to consult.
If you do not accept the terms are they willing to force you ?

I would certainly make sure i do not answer the phone on my break and work to rule. Employers cannot have their cake an eat it

parity with future employees,

WTF does this mean you cannot claim or have parity with employees who do not even exist nor do their contracts

It all depends on how reasonable they want to be and how shitty you want to be

I would ask /expect something back in return for your flexibility but expect to be dissapointed.

Treaclesponge, the terms of the original contract are generous. It’s part of the reason I agreed to come here, doesn’t mean I should be happy to agree lesser terms.

What it does mean however, is if they are not prepared to compromise then I have to “suck it up”, sign and look for better terms elsewhere.

Junkyard –

Is it a TUPE transfer or a merger

Not sure.

If you do not accept the terms are they willing to force you ?

Hoping it doesn’t get that far, but if they do then my post above applies?

WTF does this mean you cannot claim or have parity with employees who do not even exist nor do their contracts

Their words, I guess they want to avoid any potential friction down the line with employees working differing hours.

Suppose one of the questions is whether the change in lunch times makes a difference to you – if you can demonstrate life is arranged round finishing earlier (eg. kids to pick up from school? evening classes?) then you could go in with a stronger argument that their proposed change is unfair (or a justification for you appearing intransigent that might make them back down for fear of an unfair dismissal case).

Treaclesponge, the terms of the original contract are generous. It’s part of the reason I agreed to come here, doesn’t mean I should be happy to agree lesser terms.

What it does mean however, is if they are not prepared to compromise then I have to “suck it up”, sign and look for better terms elsewhere.

I understand that and sympathise to some extent, however I think if it were me in a similar situation Id be careful of rocking the boat too much as it may work against you during the period of change. Given the current job climate I suspect Id stick it out at least for a while (especially if you are happy there as it sounds you are on the whole) and see how it goes. It might not be so bad really. Unless you are in a niche job role then I suspect most places will offer similar hours and similar holiday quotas. Just a sign of the times.

I guess they want to avoid any potential friction down the line with employees working differing hours.

So they could give them the same as you. I have never ever heard that used as a reason. We are changing your contract to match it with hypothetical employees who dont exist yet- its not the strongest argument I have ever heard for harmonising.

The key here is is what do you want /think you could get – they have said what they want

Try the work through your lunch claiming family commitments?
Be clear you will do no work at all during your lunch hour as they are not going to get an extra hour out of you by doing this – this may be what they really want tbh

Its about compromise and negotiation but ultimately they hold the upper hand and all you can do is a work to rule which probably wont make you that popular.

treacle also has a point currently employment opportunities are rare so employers probably could easily replace you so they can be unreasonable to you. Its a game of poker here with risks- look at the best possible outcome you MIGHT get not what you really want which is no change
Best of luck

Cheers, all good points.

I know what I’m prepared to accept from this (which is less than I currently have) and happy to negotiate for it, I’m also aware that if I dug my heels in and walked then I’d probably not get any better terms elsewhere anyway.

Disappointed to be expected to concede so much ground for a “valued” employee, I guess I’m just trying to gauge how much of a case I have before I decide how to proceed.

Since its a small employer, why not approach it based on the reasons they give. For example, rather than having a fixed 1 hour lunch break written into the contract, argue that flexible working conditions benefits the employees and it would be much better to have a rota for answering phones, so that each person has their turn and is expected to stay in until 5. It can be implied in the contract (obligation to duties) without being so prescriptive with regard to working time.