Employment law and dangerous sports/activities

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 (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 [/quote]
It is one of the few grounds for legal termination of contract, I think it's capability. I.e. if you can't come to work, it doesn't matter why, you aren't capable of doing the job you are employed to do. Most companies will give you a reasonable chance to get better, often six months and good companies will try to find you an alternate role but if you've already p*ssed them off or there are no alternate roles available you're out. Businesses aren't charities. It's only in the business interest to look after employees whislt they're still useful to the business.