[Closed] Employment law and dangerous sports/activities

Well out of order. Of dubious legality the whole shenanigans. They simply cannot do that - sack everyone and remploy on reduced T&C

I don't know specifically on the dangerous sports exemption but I would be very surprised if it would be allowable.

Join a union ASAP - you are going to need one

It would seem that it was Unison that got us to this position. They refused to ballot members on the original proposals offered. Two other unions did and returned 80% yes votes. Not sure I'm overly impressed with unions right now.

sounds like the sort of stunt a certain manufacturer of big yellow diggers used to pull on a regular basis.

if you injure yourself, just say it was a DIY accident, they can't prove otherwise 😉

Isnt there some legal gubins that says you get redundancy pay if you've been employed for more than two years. Think this also applies to contract and temporary staff? That's the upside - down side is I didnt think a company could make someone redundant and then take on staff to fill that role within a year or two.

Does sound highly suspect - go see citizens advice if your not in a union.

I'm with Unison and imo I think they are a sack of shit 🙁

Best bit is, it we agree to all this by the 5th May, we get an "incentive payment", if we don't agree, we lose the incentive and then they sack those who didn't sign up and offer us our old jobs back with revised terms. The incentive sounds an awful lot like a bribe.

But I think you're right, my stairs look very dangerous. I could have a nasty fall down there at any time!

unions are a waste of our hard earned cash imo. esp mine who seem to swan around the world visiting Thia bars!!!

Yes they can do it, has been done by a number of firms locally.

If my works colleagues carry on down the path they are going I reckon my work place will be doing the same.

The way round the "law" is to give all the jobs a new title and job description. Hence the probation period which is then used to get rid of all the wasters which the company were unable to do before.

They are trying it on - do not accept. Take 'em for unfair dismissal if they sack you - its a bluff - they won't sack you unless they are really stupid.

Trekster - thats a load of bollox. They only get away with it if the workforce let them.

IANAL, but provided you've worked there for at least a year they can't sack you without a good reason - ie something disciplinary. There's no way that sacking the entire workforce in order to change T&Cs is legal. Similarly they can't make you all redundant and then re-employ you - the re-employing bit rather implies your jobs weren't redundant in the first place.

I'd be unimpressed with your employer, not the union - it's them trying to do the bully boy thing. Seems perfectly reasonable for the union to reject the terms without going to a ballot if they're making your T&Cs worse without any upside.

given your current personal circumstances what are your options onza?

Confident about getting a new job similar or better than your current T&Cs? What options do you have?

That's the rub. Seems they've been developing this plan since 1997 but are making the most of "the current economic climate" as an excuse for being extra stingy now. They know most people are living hand to mouth and would be too scared to put up a fight. If I'm honest, I'm probably in the same position, I just really, really hate bullies.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't take TJ's advice on this, but I bet it would be foolhardy not to...

Trekster - thats a load of bollox. They only get away with it if the workforce let them.

Entitled to your opinion TJ but that is fact. My life experiences differ from yours obviously.
My neighbour works for one such company and I played squash with others who work in a factory not 1/2ml from where I am typing this. The option was accept a new contract(within a certain period)or we shut the factory. Simple and to the point.

My work has a USA parent company and is a world player and would /could easily shut us down and transfer production to anywhere in the world, China or USA probably. We have gone from 1300 or so when I started to just over 350 and still going down.

2 contractor guys I work with worked for a local company and went on a 3wk strike for not to dissimilar reasons to the OP. The factory closed within a year after they agreed to the companies revised offer and went back to work.

My wife works in the civil service and I can assure you they are not immune from such dirty dealings and the PCS is now a swear word in her office. A union rep came to her office looking for support recently for strike action to protect job centre jobs. My wifes office is quite new and at least 50% of her workers are ex job centre employees who jumped rather than be made redundant. Some for less money. These ex job centre employees new that some of their ex colleagues were not looking for work, just waiting for a package to "retire" on.

Trekster - there is law in this country for a good reason. USA companies often try union breaking activities but what the OP is suggesting his company want to do is simply illegal.

You can accept of you can fight for your legal rights.

I had my terms and conditions changed under 'agenda for change' in the NHS. Also having watched Derbyshire County Council go through Single status, which is essentially job re-evaluation processes, where staff are infrormed their current contracts will end on x date, and they are invited to sign up to a contract with new T&C's or not have a job. I am struggling to see how the OP's situation is illegal. And the unions, total waste of ****ing space, granted not just because they are useless, but aided by a apathetic workforce who seem happy to just have a job. On a similar note, Derby City Council staff have just had their essential car user allowance taken from their T&C's and have had to sign new contracts or not have a contract, perhaps things work different in the public/ private sector on these matters??

The Glasgow Herald did something similar a couple of years back (a friend worked there at the time). Surprised me that it could be done legally but it was.

Basically they all had their employment terminated but were allowed to re-apply for jobs, however my friend decided not to re-apply.

2unfit2ride - Member
I can't imagine why you wouldn't take TJ's advice on this, but I bet it would be foolhardy not to...

I have the greatest admiration for TJ, but you would need to know that his "lifestyle choices" would not be for everyone. Therefore, while it is OK for him to go on about fighting for ones legals rights, for the majority of workers in this forum/country a more pragmatic approach will likely be required. This is especially so in the private sector and when dealing with multi-nationals.

What would be funny, would be if they sacked everyone, and they all just buggered off to other jobs. That firm would be ****ed.

Sadly, I doubt that would be possible, given the current job shortages. Companies are acting like complete chunts; taking advantage of people's job insecurity.

The Law more often than not, favours the big corporations. Surprise surprise...

Bastards. The lot of them.

Therefore, while it is OK for him to go on about fighting for ones legals rights, for the majority of workers in this forum/country a more pragmatic approach will likely be required. This is especially so in the private sector and when dealing with multi-nationals.

Pragmatic=scared. This won't be much help to Onzadog, but how long are we going to let this continue?

As epicsteve says, this process has been going on for years, with some of the largest companies and largest/most powerful unions involved, If it was in any way "illegal" we'd have known about it before now.

druidh - Member
I have the greatest admiration for TJ, but you would need to know that his "lifestyle choices" would not be for everyone. Therefore, while it is OK for him to go on about fighting for ones legals rights, for the majority of workers in this forum/country a more pragmatic approach will likely be required. This is especially so in the private sector and when dealing with multi-nationals.

Sorry, I thought everyone would realise that an extreme view should be taken with either a pinch of salt or as gospel, does STW need anything else?

Druidh - There is basic law involved - the reason companies get away with it is by frightening the workforces into accepting.

You have a contract of employment - you cannot be sacked without good reason and going thru some basic procedures.

Nor can you be made redundant and then you or someone else is employed to do the same job.

You can agree to changes in your contract and you can be bought out of your contract - but sacking people then remploying them on worse terms and conditions is not possible.

Nor can you be made redundant and then you or someone else is employed to do the same job.

Whilst this is technically true (it's not the person, but the [i]position[/i] that is made redundant), in practice, the Law means bugger all. I've been made redundant a few times; by Law, I'm supposed to be informed that I can reapply for my old job, if it becomes viable once more, but I never have. Not that I'd go back to any of the firms anyway; 'redundancy' is a convenient way of an employer getting rid of an employee, and and employee getting out of a job they don't want to be in, yet remaining eligible for any benefits they otherwise wouldn't get if they resigned or were sacked.

As for the rest of it- big companies seem to be able to act with impunity. Bastards.

Who can I blame? 🙄

Who can I blame?

Happened to me in the past
Big company, big union [what's now Unite]

The company basically said that there were too many different Ts & Cs throughout the workforce & they needed to consolidate them as they weren't any longer relevant to the job.
Anyway - loads of consultation etc. that ended in stalemate so we were basically told to take it or leave it from a certain date - if we turned up for work that day, we were accepting the new Ts & Cs
The Union advised that we comply

IIRC 3 or 4 refused to accept the conditions, & later took their case to a tribunal [which the union refused to support] - they all lost.

to the OP - times are tough in the employment market & only you know what your personal situation is, only you can really decide whether to roll over or fight. It may be worth saving the fight for another day.
Fighting from a position of not having a job will be tough & getting another one whilst in the middle of an industrial dispute may not be the easiest thing you've ever done.

They may well be pushing the legalities in some places but you can be sure they're well advised & well funded.

to the sacking/re-employing - sounds very dodgy to me.

to the dangerous activities contracts - I'm on the same.

It's not unusual to see clauses regarding dangerous activities/sports
It usually goes along the lines of 'if it's causing excessive absence' etc.
I've also seen clauses relating to elective surgery

They usually suggest taking out your own insurance policy

Out of all they've proposed, it's he dangerous activities clause that's bothering me most. It would appear that they're saying they don't want a fit active workforce despite more than enough reports out there evidencing the fact that this overall produces lower absence from work and faster recover should you fall ill. Still, should the worst happen, riding a push bike through the park can't be classed as dangerous. I just don't explain that it was The Peak District National Park. Now, anyone got any good ideas how to "explain" a martial arts injury should it happen?

I'd love to be able to fight this but as said above, it wouldn't be easy with no job and no money. Despite it sounding very very dodgy, I have to assume they've got a big team of lawyers behind this. It's a local authority I work for so it's good to see them leading by example.

I think the only get out might be if they ask people to sign a new contract without fully disclosing the terms and conditions (like what they consider to be a dangerous activity).

It would appear that they're saying they don't want a fit active workforce

I'm not sure they are - I guess they don't particularly want to fund someone who - say - races MX badly & is injured every other week

The No. 1 cause of long-term absence in the local Fire Brigade used to be mountain biking injuries - may still be. There are safer ways of being "fit & active".

My old work did a change of contract on us. I looked into it on one of the govt's "know your rights" type websites, and you had two options - either accept it, or get sacked and go to a tribunal. It had a few odious clauses - one in particular was that we were obliged to do overtime (overtime in our line of work often consisting of working all night).

After they'd changed the contracts, the same firm of HR consultants advised them on how to make about 50% of the staff on my level and the level above redundant.

So my advice is to do the complete opposite of what TJ says and keep your mouth shut. In the near future you can guarantee that they'll be getting rid of people, and they're planning to do it again (no reason for them to sack you and re-employ you EXCEPT to reduce your redundancy rights). I'd start looking in the job pages and jump before you're shoved.

I'm a moutainbiker not a lawyer, so I suggest you get together with 5 or 6 colleagues and share the cost on an hour's legal advice. Could be the best 20 quid you ever spent but even if not at least you'll know.

Probably the broad strokes of they're doing is not illegal (they have lawyers too and if they're as big as you say they will have covered their bases) however they could be trying it on and once you've signed you could have lost recourse. The small print, OTOH (dangerous sports etc etc) may well be unenforcible, but will likely be trotted out by some idiot middle manager who wants to control his/her minions.

My sympathies; I have been in this situation, but in a country with no real labour law to speak of, so had to lump it.

Not illegal unfortunately. Depends really, do you want a job or a fight? 3 months sick pay? I don't get paid at all if I'm off sick...As for dangerous sports, cycling isn't, neither is mountain biking. What these things are looking at is stuff like sky diving, lion wrestling, aardvark annoying, that sort of shit...

My 2p: IIRC employers CAN force non-material changes of T&Cs on you, and as sick pay is not statutory, I imagine they could get away with not paying for injuries from dangerous sports.

Seems odd to me that they could sack you for not signing up to them, but it's not my area.

juan - Member

Who can I blame?

Now that's easy... Tatcher like you even need to ask.

Hah. Isn't it Brown whose got us into this current state of affairs, blaming a leader from the 80's for everything is a bit like blaming Nixon for everything bike thats stolen in the UK.
Brown even admitted at the weekend that he'd fücked up not controlling the banks enough when he was chancellor.

I'd suggest OP doesn't raise the issue of "dangerous sports" definition, as as soon as he's off sick then management will be scrutinising why he's off etc, there'll be plenty of other wide tied city boyz getting skiing & boarding injuries through winter months to deflect attention away from him.

Agree it is shite what his employers are trying to do, agree Unison is shite as well.

Lots of Local Authorities are doing this at the moment.

Several of the Authorities that went unitary last year are skint now and have made everyone re-apply for their jobs.

One LA that my wife did some supply teaching work for brought in a rule that teachers would be dismissed if they had two periods of sick leave within one 12 month period.

It's pretty galling that a public body behaves in this fashion, but during my adult working career I have increasing viewed LA's as the weak spot in our democratic and administrative process. They tend to be a law unto themselves - and largely unfettered by any shred of competence.

Even where council officers are diligent, competent and professional they are time after time let down by grubby little councillors / members who rarely look beyond their own self interest

In my last place they changed what was covered under the health scheme to not include extreme sports but they used a list as supplied by the insurance industry and bike wasn't rated high enough to count but things like sking and kite boarding did. They can change you t&c's when doing it by consaultaton.

how do they know what you were doing when you were injured?
can't you just say you were out for a (non-extreme) walk ?

A lot of times, mtbing isn't considered a dangerous sport - certainly mtbing is typically not excluded from travel insurance policies which usually explicitly list sports they consider dangerous.

IMO you're going to have to acceept the deal being offered unless you want a big fight with a high probability of losing at the end and lots of stress irrespective. I'd just check what sports they consider dangerous.

It's probably time to get a dozen good men, put on balaclavas, and pay a night time visit to the HR head. Then teach him/her the elements of baseball.

They are trying to frighten you so return the favour.

No worse than what they are doing to you IMO.

I know it's not an easy time to be doing this, but I'd be looking for a different employer. I wouldn't want to work for such a bunch of shady *****.

Trust me, I'm looking! I've already asked HR for a definition of dangerous activities and they say they'll get back to me. I'll probably stick that on here just for giggles when they get back to me. I wonder if they'll consider me cycling to work on a dual carriage way A road as a dangerous activity?

Most employers are like this. All they're trying to do is reel in your T & Cs. As for the dangerous activities, the sick pay policy is at their discretion so they can pretty much do what they want as long as they give you the appropriate notice before changing your contract. They can sack you for time off sick anyway regardless of whether the sickness was legit or not (TJ will be along in a moment to say they can't I'm sure). If you're not capable of being in work then they can let you go especially if they think the cause for the absence is likely to re-occur.

Go get some real advice from an employment lawyer if you don't trust your local union. So much of what has been said on here is simply wrong. You are in a stronger position that many folk here think. Most employers rely on a cowed workforce to push changes thru

Can they really do that? I mean sack everyone then remploy the next day? I know its a rhetorical question as they'll have looked into it from every angle but still. Surely when this gets out to the papers there will be an outcry?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No they can't Hora - that is the point. There are things that they can do to alter terms and conditions and this sort of threat is used as a threat to cow staff into accepting changes.

The bad news is, especially in the current climate, I think their plan is going to work and people will begrudgingly accept anything they say.

Just done some googling and re-applying for jobs is very common and I can't find anything that suggests it's not legal. By the looks of it, it's done under the banner of reconstruction typically with some redundancies and as such is legal.

north yorkshire fire service gave notice that they were going to sack the entire brigade last year then offer them a diminished contract of employment with different hours and benefits and new pension unless they changed their hours. The staff in the end took the change of hours as it was too much to lose. Thats a govt body doin it so im sure a normal company can get away with it 🙁

I think you can safely read the "everybody is on 6 months probation" as "complain now, and you'll be sacked in 6 months"....Sad but probably true.

No they can't Hora - that is the point. There are things that they can do to alter terms and conditions and this sort of threat is used as a threat to cow staff into accepting changes.

You are deluded, they can and will do this and won't break any laws. The most they will have to do is give a 12 week notice period. They can then pretty much do what they like with the T&C's

Raveydavey - You cannot sack and entire staff without reason. 12 wk notice period you can change terms and conditions but the threat of sack the entire workforce and only remploy on reduced contracts simply is not plausible. It would be an unfair dismissal

Its only cos gullible people believe this that they can get away with it.

As in firestarters example - the threat made the workforce cave in. Employers rely on this

Surely you could test them in court and they would have to settle?

If someone affectly fires the entire workforce to re-engage everyone on different terms then surely it can be argued that its sharp practice?

Funnily I bet they have a large pot of contingency cash/confidentiality agreements to pay off those that want to go to tribunal etc.

TJ - it's when the employees refuse the conditions after the 12 weeks that they threaten to sack everyone

The term sacking in this instance refers to redundancy rather than dismissal. The current positions are being phased out, however new positions are being offered with new T&C's. If you look into this you will find that it is now standard practice.The employee has no room for manoeuvre.

Rasveydavey - thats not redundancy in any way. You cannot chose for redundancy on grounds of accepting or refusing reduced terms

What is happening is the threats cow the workforce into accepting the changes. If they actually tied to sack people on those grounds then it would clearly be unfair dismissal.

The workforce are being scared into giving up their rights.

For once I definitely agree with comrade TJ.

I'm gobsmacked. The company will have run feasibility study (cost versus benefit etc) but they'll also know some staff will test them.

LIke most of the other posters I ANAL but always thought an individual is 'sacked' while a post/role is 'made redundant' - different situations completely.

Anyway, in private sector there's 'law' and 'what happens' the two are not as closely related as they should 😕

As many vacancies are filled by 'word of mouth' references employees take the 'heads down' route and hope that even if they don't keep their current job, they'll get a 'nod and a wink' that'll get them another one.

Some more reading into it.

The company decides to make a major restructure to the way the company works. It may technically be called reconstruction. As a result ALL roles at the company are redundant and therefore all the people at the company are at risk.

New roles in the restructured company are offered. Typically it seems that these are near identical but with different titles and different Ts&Cs - how that works legally I don't know but it seems the norm that companies have stood up to challenges on this.

So while we all know what's really going on, it's a fairly straightforward redundancy situation...

And irrespective of that, people usually accept because they don't want to risk not getting a job so sticking your neck out will likely be a lonely and stressful experience. My advice (from some experience of something similar) is to take what's on offer and look for a new job.

TJ

some info here

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_10037116

They can sack you for time off sick anyway regardless of whether the sickness was legit or not

Really?

Really?

Yep - not sure they'd call it the sack though

Whatever you call it, the sack or redundancy the outcome will be the same. This method is used extensively in the private sector. I have been on both sides of it and there is no chance that they will be overturned on appeal.

Ah - thanks for that uplink, explains where I was mistaken. In my case one of the T&Cs the company wants to change is redundancy terms, and I don't think they're about to make us all redundant in order to get that one through (personally I'd be happy with almost any change in my T&Cs if they want to pay me what I'm entitled to for redundancy under my current T&Cs and then re-employ me!) The union has advised that what they're trying to do (change T&Cs unilaterally) is illegal.

this is a great one for the 'i've nothing to hide' brigade, the opposite to the surveillance tin foil hatters

Software is soon to be available ([url= http://www.sapweb20.com/blog/2009/03/sap-enterprise-social-networking-prototype/ ]SAP Network Analyzer[/url]) that draws in data from social networking sites under the auspices of being a tool to develop business relationships. Clearly it doesn't take a genius to turn it against the workforce and if contractual clauses like this become common place then it clearly marks a huge and frightening step forward in employee monitoring.

that draws in data from social networking sites

I'll be safe then 🙂

Really?

Yep - not sure they'd call it the sack though