Here we are, page 7 of the ACAS book:
[quote=ninfan ]TJ, didn't there use to be a clause along the lines of 'carry on working under duress' to force it to the point where they actually had back down or sack you?
Aren't you thinking of the imposition of new terms without getting you to sign a new contract - where you're deemed to have accepted the terms if you carry on turning up to work? "Working under duress" then provides you with a means to explicitly refuse the new terms without providing your employer with an easy way to sack you for absenteeism. Though that doesn't apply here as they've missed a trick by asking the employees to agree to the terms rather than imposing them.
Dig out your original job description/person spec, add in the additional bits that you now do, ask how this justifies a salary reduction. Not entirely that simple I know
ACAs TUc and .gov sites have lots of good info on this sort of thing. I have some expertise my Mrs has a lot. Let me know if I can be of more help.
ACAS have a helpline - I suggest you phone this.
I had a similar situation two years ago - although I got made "redundant" for a day in-between by an administrator who claimed I would get statutory redundancy from the government to make up the shortfall. I didn't and had to go an employment tribunal. I was offered an out-of-court settlement in the run up to the court case- I accepted the third offer. ACAS negotiated all this - but it took them a while to notice my case because I had not gone to them in the first instance. Good luck!
mcgeordie - Member
Does the large company begin with the letter A by any chance? Sounds just like my ex-employer!
Beat me to it Boss
My Mrs went to industrial tribunal over constructive dismissal and it didn't cost her a penny. She won.
I think the rules have changed recently so there are now initial costs involved.
Though that doesn't apply here as they've missed a trick by asking the employees to agree to the terms rather than imposing them.
Yup, any company that understands UK law would have have gone for new contracts without asking for signatures. Staying in the job seen as acceptance. Of course, all your best people leave if you do that, but hey, legally much easier.
TJ (and slow) an ex colleague went to tribuneral I was his witness. He spent £27k. He won his case and got £1,000 and had to pay his own costs. You are doing the OP a massive disservice in your posts. The acquiring company are pros at this, they will not make basic errors of process or law. The chances of him being successful in a tribuneral are imo pretty limited, they won't make basic errors.
I last used an employment lawyer and got a 30% discount of fees at £350 an hour (appreciate that is central London), easy to run up a bill of a few thousand just working out where you stand and bills run away once you start any proceedings (wihich could be months away)
@njee, imo very unlikley redundancy terms are in a contract, it will just say something like according to the policy in force at the time and that policy can be chnaged easily at any time.
OP don't sign the new contract, see if they will just pay you off and find a new job. If finding a job is going to be hard then you have to take the tough decision as to whether to just lump it. As for "exposing them" I'd think carefully about this, they don't GAS and I am sure the management/owners of your business where well aware of their reputation when they sold it to them. Do not assume a tribuneral will cost little or be quick.
Best of luck.
My two pennth
1 check your house insurance, Do you have house insurance and does it include legal fees.
2, update your cv
From then on you need to decide sign or not sign
By not signing you may be effectively getting pushed out the door, payrises bonuses will likely stop. Go early than late.
Yup, any company that understands UK law would have have gone for new contracts without asking for signatures. Staying in the job seen as acceptance. Of course, all your best people leave if you do that, but hey, legally much easier.
How does this work? They can't just suddenly start paying you less? I'd struggle to maintain my composure if that happened to me.
If they can, then comments about us having workers rights are inaccurate!
This MAY help, especially page 7 - good tips on best practice.
Good luck, stay calm, be polite, take notes, be constructive - let them be the dicks, and keep the moral and practical high ground
IME involving lawyers quickly becomes uneconomic. I was in the odd situation of being on both sides of this recently - dont ask - and lessons learned
1. Dont assume the company is right or that thy have taken correct legal advice
2. Try to be constructive - as soon as you sound letigious (?) the shutters come down
3. Dont expect HR to help/be on your side
4. Stay calm, let them sweat the details. They should know the law. See if they do, but in a polite way
5. Use the Japanese version of "Yes" ie, yes I have heard you but this doesn't mean I agree. It unsettles people!!
Good luck
Have got legal cover on my home insurance, but not sure how comprehensive this is given it is only an extra £20.
All seems like a strange business strategy to me. They'll lose the best people and the people who do stay are so resentful they arent exactly working too hard
4. Stay calm, let them sweat the details. They should know the law. See if they do, but in a polite way
I get the feeling they don't know the law, the HR people aren't in the UK and think they are unaware of all the differences between the different European locations.
The acquiring company are pros at this, they will not make basic errors of process or law.
No doubt some department in the company will know the exact law and how to apply it correctly, but that department is not necessarily who OP will be dealing with at present. I work for either the 2nd or 3rd largest company in the world (don't know which, top 3 anyway). Companies like that understand what they can and can't do, I agree. Individuals within the company though, for example my manager... He refused to grant me both paternity leave and parental leave because they fall within an expected busy period. A quick chat with HR put him right, but up to that point he was adamant that paternity leave was granted at the discretion of the company.
They can't just suddenly start paying you less?
There is very little they can do "suddenly" that isn't prohibited, but if they follow all the rules on timescales, negotiation period, let any unions have their say etc, they can do what they want/need.
I have worked in M&A on different sides and have just been involved in an (unwelcome) acquisition myself by a serial acquirer who claims expertise in this area, Experience from its suggest that it is unwise to assume that companies know what they are doing, It never fails to amaze me at how poor people are at acquisition and how poorly they understand the legal, operational and financial aspects of the process. They are often in too much of a rush and often blinded by deal fever.
In the last situation, my lawyer coud no believe how crass the acquirer was. I was armed with the legal facts and let them be known in a calm manner. They backed down when they knew I knew what the law was. Cost me just under <£1k for the advcie but interestingly my lawyers advise was if they decided to play hard ball - even if wrong - that it would be uneconomic to challenge them legally. Fortunately they blinked first!!!
Not pleasant so good luck.
P.S. even if they are being AHs try to separate the people from the situation - even the HR people. They often hate the process too.
UK firms HR are usually so incompetent that they make huge mistakes. US firms almost always so. I have run rings round HR in this sort of situation. Its not rocket science but most HR is useless and most US bosses dont realise we have some basic workers rights here.
Spot on. Particularly regarding HR competence in this country. Stand your ground and start working on plan B. Good luck.
I'm no expert but I know how to spell tribunal
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the new employers actions, there's one thing obvious.
You are going to be working for a bunch of arseholes.
When the shit hose comes out, you will be sprayed with it liberally. Your self esteem will suffer, you'll probably get depressed, and then find it difficult to present a confident competent image to a prospective employer.
So the best thing is to get out now before it happens. You have a legitimate reason.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the new employers actions, there's one thing obvious.
You are going to be working for a bunch of arseholes.
When the shit hose comes out, you will be sprayed with it liberally. Your self esteem will suffer, you'll probably get depressed, and then find it difficult to present a confident competent image to a prospective employer.
So the best thing is to get out now before it happens. You have a legitimate reason.
That is what I'm thinking. A lot of the people I've met in the new company from previous acquisitions fit that description. I worked pretty hard in the last place and had a good reputation, but get the feeling I could cut my hours and effort right back and no one would really notice or care. I guess if they want to realign my pay and benefits with their UK staff, I can also realign my effort and attainment to match. Not healthy long term though.
What a bunch of ass hats you work for now..
I can't add anything that's not already been said but if it was me and I got paid less, I'd probably work less. I just couldn't help it. I always was an akward sod.
Get the CV in order. I'm sure your competitors will get wind of what's going on so the quicker you leave, the better.
Remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.
If your employer is the same company as before, but that has a new parent company, in my understanding TUPE doesn't apply. It only applies if the workforce or a defined section of the workforce are transferred to a different employer, including a new company formed by merging. The terms take-over and merger are sometimes used imprecisely, check what has actually happened.
https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/overview
I have had the same stunt tried, I told them to bugger off, they left me on the same terms. All turned out well as i am earning double now as I was then.
I would say if they are trying to f u over, they will have budgeted for some settlement costs.
Jamba - just because your friend was stupid and spent all that money on lawyers does not mean that you have to. It is actively discouraged hence costs are not available to either sidee. I have prepped folk for tribunals a few times and everytime the employer backed down and paid up. My missus used to do it for a living and has won dozens of tribunals.
Its you that is doing him a disservice trying to frighten him off with illinformed nonsense. Suits your far right agenda I suppose
Just 'cos you know idiots doesn't mean everyone is one.
I did also point him in the direction of good quality information and support. anyone well prepared and articulate can win tribunals. A tribunal where the company brings in high powered lawyers against someone representing themselves the tribunal chair will bend over backwards to help the layperson.
I have been involved as a mainplayer and superficially in a number of cases, In every one the employer made basic legal errors.
