Re: Change


"Cynic" <cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:huo1629rt814rg5rbve7m97p2m1fnboior@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:47:18 +0100, "Fred" <Fred@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now both jobs may involve exactly the same activities on the part of
the employee, but that does not mean that they can be regarded as the
same position. After all, if they *were* exactly the same, the
employee would have no problems with signing the new contract.

If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck and looks like one then it
probably is a duck.

If they really are the *identical* job, the employee should have no
qualms about signing the new contract.


Why should the employee accept changes to his working conditions to his
detriment?

If it looks the same job, has the same activities, where some alternative
aspect has changed, then it doesn't look like redundancy.

So a company that moves from Manchester to Leeds cannot make anyone
redundant, because all the same jobs, comprising the same activities
exist in the new offices?


This is an entirely different scenario. The criterion here is whether the
distance to the new premises is reasonable. That depends entirely on
circumstances. It probably would not be reasonable for (say) a shelf
stacker who has to rely on public transport. But it may be perfectly
reasonable for an executive provided with a company car.

If the employer hired more people say on a new contract and then called
for
redundancies, where he makes his desired changes to the posts and does
downsize, then that may well be a different matter. It then looks more
like
redundancy.

Redundancies are *not* only due to downsizing. They can happen in a
growing business due to restructuring or changes to methodologies.
The employees who are to lose their job will usually be attempted to
be employed in a different position - but there is often resistance to
change and so the employee becomes redundant. The shorthand typist
who refuses to learn to use a wordprocessor after the company decides
to replace its typewrites with computers & printers, for example.


Whether the redundancy really is a redundancy in any individual case will be
decided by an employment tribunal if called on to rule on the point. It
will not be decided by the employer. The tribunals are mindful that many
unscrupulous employers try to disguise an unlawful dismissal as a
redundancy, so generally the onus of justification tends to fall on the
employer.

Introducing new methodologies is one area that has proved particularly
troublesome. Though technically, it is a bit of a grey area. Generally a
large company with a powerful union will fail if the union really put their
mind to it. But the negotiating capability of a handful of employees in a
small busines is much diminished and they (the employer) will likely
succeed. Tribunals, at present, generally regard new methodologies as still
doing the original job, but in a different way, though here their is a
question of degree.

Remember Fleet Street tried and tried and completely failed to replace the
Hot Metal Type printing machines dating from the 1910's and 20's, forcing
the CEGB to run a power station solely to power these machines (Bank Side -
now the Tate Modern). It took Rupert Murdock to drag Fleet Street in to
the modern era (though not without a change of address as well). But he
didn't do it by forcing new technology onto his existing work force. He
created the conditions where his work force went on strike and Murdoch
regarded them as having terminated their own employment. Murdoch was
technically right, but whether he was right morally is still hotly debated
with the unions and employers occupying opposing camps.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Employment law - problem staff
    ... give him whatever minimum notice is required and let him take it at ... knowledge) to pay redundancy money. ... have a clear disciplinary procedure and stick ... The employee would argue, successfully, that as no action was taken ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Employment law - problem staff
    ... give him whatever minimum notice is required and let him take it at ... knowledge) to pay redundancy money. ... have a clear disciplinary procedure and stick ... The employee would argue, successfully, that as no action was taken ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Employment law - problem staff
    ... give him whatever minimum notice is required and let him take it at ... knowledge) to pay redundancy money. ... have a clear disciplinary procedure and stick ... The employee would argue, successfully, that as no action was taken ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Employment law - problem staff
    ... give him whatever minimum notice is required and let him take it at ... knowledge) to pay redundancy money. ... have a clear disciplinary procedure and stick ... The employee would argue, successfully, that as no action was taken ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Employment law - problem staff
    ... give him whatever minimum notice is required and let him take it at ... knowledge) to pay redundancy money. ... have a clear disciplinary procedure and stick ... The employee would argue, successfully, that as no action was taken ...
    (uk.legal)