HR/employment advice urgently required

Messages
1,121
With employers like these, I can see why people join trade unions.
And it was the trade unions that brought this country down in the 70's. Fast forward to present, trade unions now have dentures and cannot even bite into an apple. Much of their clout was taken out by Margaret Thatcher in the 80's. I'd say support by public for unions is at a very low level. I was involved with employee negotiation with a union representative. All it did was draw out the timeline slightly, but no extra package and no reversal of decision to dismiss. That tells you how much clout they have for your subscription. From an employer view, it is key to (a) have a transparent grievance procedure and (b) to follow it to the letter as the dismissing manager. Unions look for divergence and disparity in procedures and implementation. Take that didparity away, and you throw away their dentures.

Grievance procedures cannot be argued fair/unfair by Unions, because an employee is deemed to have accepted them in signing and accepting their contract of employment.
 
Messages
1,121
I would agree that this is sound advice, if you are accepting the pain, there is nothing to be gained by registering your disagreement but plenty to use..........
I hope the impact won't be too great financially for the family, so many people will going through similar or worse. I guess you have the opportunity to take on some sort of work in the two days you have free each week that could top up the bank balance a little.
Best of luck.
Yup. On the one hand you agree to changes and on the other you want a file note saying you disagree. Apart from the disconnect it suggests you are not grateful for holding your job and the company's effort to stay afloat. In a restructure downstream, such employees may not be retained and on the "let go" list. No employer wants staff voicing disagreement to the rest of the employees.
 

Excalibur

New Member
Messages
29
And it was the trade unions that brought this country down in the 70's. Fast forward to present, trade unions now have dentures and cannot even bite into an apple. Much of their clout was taken out by Margaret Thatcher in the 80's. I'd say support by public for unions is at a very low level. I was involved with employee negotiation with a union representative. All it did was draw out the timeline slightly, but no extra package and no reversal of decision to dismiss. That tells you how much clout they have for your subscription. From an employer view, it is key to (a) have a transparent grievance procedure and (b) to follow it to the letter as the dismissing manager. Unions look for divergence and disparity in procedures and implementation. Take that didparity away, and you throw away their dentures.

Grievance procedures cannot be argued fair/unfair by Unions, because an employee is deemed to have accepted them in signing and accepting their contract of employment.
I agree that unions do not have the power they used to have. However my father found them very useful in fighting a claim for an industrial injury many years ago. Also a relative who is in the airline business finds they are good at fighting the ever worsening terms and conditions that her company tries to force on their employees.
I find it strange that some people take pride in their work of sacking people. How do they sleep at night?
 
Messages
1,121
I agree that unions do not have the power they used to have. However my father found them very useful in fighting a claim for an industrial injury many years ago. Also a relative who is in the airline business finds they are good at fighting the ever worsening terms and conditions that her company tries to force on their employees.
I find it strange that some people take pride in their work of sacking people. How do they sleep at night?
There is no sense of pride. Businesses go through periods of hive-up, high-down, takeovers, mergers, acquisitions. Recruiting staff and losing (down-sizing) staff is a normal business activity. Maybe you have not been exposed to carryong out such responsibilities?

Some companies and some staff are better at it than others.Some can do it without protracted discussions, without litigation and others cannot.

This member posted on here from a sense of panic (see title). I told it as it is. Where you interpret 'sense of pride' is beyond comprehension.

In future I will post more blue sky stuff such as get a claim in for unfair demands being made. Spend a lot of money, get nowhere, and lose. Employers are not (or should not be daft or quick to take actions exposing them to litigation without skilled expert advice. Employees need to be cognizant of this - that legal advice has very likely been taken

Some Unions have a role in negotiating or pushing back on changes affecting large numbers of employees.
 

safrane

Member
Messages
16,859
A very broad brush statement saying unions have no teeth anymore.

There areba number of them who can stop workers almost instantly even though there is legislation ro stop this activity... I know first hand the challage of getting enough staff to work just to keep people alive and fed.
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,139
I hope all the people involved in taking this path are also taking a 40% cut......

Anyway, it’s clearly correct to say if you fight it, which you are not as you say, you will most likely be a marked man later.

The best thing to do is just to nod and accept it, but also look for another job in the background. If you find one great, you could then contact your employer and ask if they would be prepared to release you from the 3 months notice early. There should be no hard feelings and ‘you’ll never work here again’ nonsense involved.

If they are imposing a 40% cut in your income, by changing your contract due to current exceptional circumstances, it would surely be only fair for them to waive the 3 months if you have the chance to maintain your income elsewhere. True colours would be exposed if they say no...

Obviously finding something else at the moment is easier said than done!
 
Messages
1,121
If it were me, my decision to release early would be based on who they are going to. If it was a competitor, very likely inmediate release. If not, a decision based on work required and ability to redistribute among other staff. Generally, if the person is reasonable it encourages a resonable response from the employer.

But it all hinges on if a job can be found in the present situation. Without that job offer, no need to consider if they will hold or release from notice period.
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,139
Also, I suppose one may wonder why the 80% govt scheme is not being used. However, as this is limited to £2500/month maybe 60% of the OP’s salary is more than that anyway, so he’s better off with the 60% than being on the govt scheme!
Could be doing you a favour!
(Apart from working 3 days a week!)
 

mmarks

Member
Messages
132
Hi all,

Yes, 60% is greater than £2500 per month.
I think the advice here is good. I've 'accepted' their terms (not that I had a choice) and do agree that my lodging a challenge will probably put me on the hit list! Right now, 60% is financially better than being furloughed (although I'm effectively working 3 days a week for almost nothing compared to the furlough amount). When this is all over I'll look elsewhere as I also know the year end was end March, the last year was very, very profitable and I believe the partners took huge bonuses then put people on short time. I guess they can do this but it demonstrates to me that they aren't looking at the long term or making any personal sacrifices.
If they engineer me out or make me redundant then at least I'll have 3 months salary to find an alternative.

Michael

Sent from my BBF100-1 using Tapatalk
 
Messages
1,121
By taking the actions they have taken it might make the business sustainable. We won't know until we come out the other side of this pandemic. I would not set expectations that a redundancy situation downstream = 3 months pay. They can and they may make you work the full notice period. If they want to be reasonable, they may offer to release you prior to the end of the notice period if you find another job and your new employer doesn't want to wait till you finish the notice period. By you severing the notice period in this way beford it ends, they do not have to pay you up the balance of notice not used. But its better than losing the job offer to another candidate that can start sooner or straight away.

Employers can be smart and reasonable. My last employer did carry out this practice for senior Directors who had long notice periods (typically 6- 12 months).

For the time being, you have your job, you are better than being in a furlough situation (which they would have considered) and all for a 3 day week. I'd say prima facie they have looked after you extremely well under present conditions. I know of several people in small businesses that all lost their job, ran out of pay offs by now and not able to apply for Universal Credit. Its tough, very tough. Employers are walking a tightrope as well as employees.
 

MrPea

Member
Messages
3,015
Sorry I didn't come in on this when someone suggested I may have some ability to guide you. I'm pleased to see that you've had some good thought-churning provided by other members. That's always the first need - work out what's going on and what you want your position to be down the line.

There are a couple of things that have come to my mind that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
  • It could be worth checking/asking if there's a clause that the employer will review every X weeks or months. One of my friends has this situation. It is indeed because the employer wants to keep solvent, wants to keep their staff solvent where they can and ensure everyone is treated as fairly as possible (although the big bonus thing you mention raises eyebrows).
  • I'm getting the impression from several places that the furlough scheme can be used and topped up by the employer. So, two people I know are getting government furlough payment and being topped up to full pay by the employer. (Hopefully this won't come round to bite employers in their backsides if the government say they're not allowed to top up.). Employers are then being creative and putting some staff on furlough and others full time work for one month and changing who is doing what the next month. Could that be helpful?
  • The one thing you've mentioned where you need to be careful is that you've been working there for under 24 months, including notice period. That means the company could, in theory, decide they want to dismiss you without much reason and you wouldn't have much to stand on unless it's for discrimination or whistleblowing.
  • It is very possible for employers to jump into these things without thinking them through fully themselves. After all, they sound like they may be panicking about ongoing cashflow. I have seen employers do so and then have it cost them!

'A friend of mine' is very grateful for the hive knowledge, advice and recommendations from fellow members of this forum!

I hope this all works out for you.
 

Silvercat

Member
Messages
1,166
And it was the trade unions that brought this country down in the 70's. Fast forward to present, trade unions now have dentures and cannot even bite into an apple. Much of their clout was taken out by Margaret Thatcher in the 80's. I'd say support by public for unions is at a very low level. I was involved with employee negotiation with a union representative. All it did was draw out the timeline slightly, but no extra package and no reversal of decision to dismiss. That tells you how much clout they have for your subscription. From an employer view, it is key to (a) have a transparent grievance procedure and (b) to follow it to the letter as the dismissing manager. Unions look for divergence and disparity in procedures and implementation. Take that didparity away, and you throw away their dentures.

Grievance procedures cannot be argued fair/unfair by Unions, because an employee is deemed to have accepted them in signing and accepting their contract of employment.
I would agree. I was involved in an Industrial Tribunal for a constructive dismissal case a few years back and all the Tribunal were really interested in is if the company had followed to the letter its grievances procedures and processes.
 
Messages
1,121
I would agree. I was involved in an Industrial Tribunal for a constructive dismissal case a few years back and all the Tribunal were really interested in is if the company had followed to the letter its grievances procedures and processes.
Ask me how I know! I had trade union reps try it on with me several times when dismissing a member of staff. I followed the grievance performance and redundancy procedure to the letter - and it was all carefully documented with the employee signing they had understood the letter and its content. Not a single disparity. So the dismissal stood, the poor employee got f$ck all other than the absolute bare minimum entitlement, no nice reference agreed, no ex-gratia payment above legal or contractual requirements or keep the car for a reduced value etc etc. I am sure when it got to other Union involvement, they must have asked who is the dismissing manager? And if my name was mentioned, the Union guy would invariably tell them all the bases would be covered and advised his member to accept the offer.
 
Messages
1,121
Sorry I didn't come in on this when someone suggested I may have some ability to guide you. I'm pleased to see that you've had some good thought-churning provided by other members. That's always the first need - work out what's going on and what you want your position to be down the line.

There are a couple of things that have come to my mind that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
  • It could be worth checking/asking if there's a clause that the employer will review every X weeks or months. One of my friends has this situation. It is indeed because the employer wants to keep solvent, wants to keep their staff solvent where they can and ensure everyone is treated as fairly as possible (although the big bonus thing you mention raises eyebrows).
  • I'm getting the impression from several places that the furlough scheme can be used and topped up by the employer. So, two people I know are getting government furlough payment and being topped up to full pay by the employer. (Hopefully this won't come round to bite employers in their backsides if the government say they're not allowed to top up.). Employers are then being creative and putting some staff on furlough and others full time work for one month and changing who is doing what the next month. Could that be helpful?
  • The one thing you've mentioned where you need to be careful is that you've been working there for under 24 months, including notice period. That means the company could, in theory, decide they want to dismiss you without much reason and you wouldn't have much to stand on unless it's for discrimination or whistleblowing.
  • It is very possible for employers to jump into these things without thinking them through fully themselves. After all, they sound like they may be panicking about ongoing cashflow. I have seen employers do so and then have it cost them!
'A friend of mine' is very grateful for the hive knowledge, advice and recommendations from fellow members of this forum!

I hope this all works out for you.
I did not pick up that bit about working less than 24 months. Certainly he could be dismissed very easily. He had even a weaker positon than it first appeared (and it was very weak to start with). I urge people that come to me with these situations to see it calmly from the employers side and versus their contractual obligations. Too often people get excited at possibly receiving several months notice period in redundancy pay when there is a good chance that it will not happen. I know of one instance where a candidate lost the job offer due to a notice period and his employer was unwilling to release early - his was a key role and they needed him to work the FULL notice period less any days annual leave for knowledge transfer and redistribution of his work among other staff. And they had pressure on them from the candidate and the new employer to release early. They stubbornly refused and the recruiting firm withdrew their offer and offered it to a back-up candidate who was available at very short notice.
In Latin I think it is:
Nunquam minoris aestimo potestatem domini tui (never underestimate the power of your master)
 

Wagons-Lits

Member
Messages
250
Hey all, with respect to the OPs situation (and sorry to hear it) I saw this article discussing similar circumstances with the senior partner in charge of employment at Withers here in London - thought it might be useful for others down the line. I've personally used Meriel (as have many of my clients/candidates - I'm a headhunter) and can vouch that she's pretty much the best at what she does in London or NY. Hope this might be helpful:

"I’m a senior executive working in management consultancy and have been asked to take a 10 per cent pay cut. My employer has not said it is temporary, just that it will be reviewed in three months. They have said that if we don’t take pay cuts, redundancies would be on the cards for a number of employees. Should I agree and what are the considerations? "

Meriel Schindler, head of the employment law team at Withers, says that sadly you are among the very many people in the UK being asked to accept a pay cut in the current climate, but you are not entirely at your employer’s mercy and should consider some options. If you accept a cut it will involve a formal variation of your contract. I have not seen your contract, however, your employer is likely to need your written agreement to a variation involving anything as significant as a pay cut.

Before accepting a pay cut you should explore whether all of your peer group and those senior to you are also being asked to take an equivalent cut. You could also seek to negotiate the level of pay cut. Would your employer be content with, say a 5 per cent rather than a 10 per cent cut? If you refuse to take a pay cut then your employer either has the choice of backing down or, as threatened, making you redundant.

If you have been employed for more than two years then your employer will need to follow a fair process and in particular select you fairly for redundancy or risk falling foul of unfair dismissal law. If your employer is strapped for cash they may only pay you statutory redundancy and your notice period. If you have been employed for less than two years then you are somewhat under protected and your employer is likely to exit you by simply paying you your notice pay. However, there are steps you can take and there may even be advantages to be secured in this situation. The advantage of agreeing to a pay cut is that you retain your job at a time when it may be difficult to get out and look for a job. If you are contemplating accepting a cut, I would also try and agree an automatic reinstatement of your previous salary after three months rather than simply “a review”.

Additionally, it might be feasible to agree a bonus for achieving certain targets, which might go some way towards compensating you for the cut. In return for accepting a pay cut, you might also be able to negotiate other non-monetary benefits. This could take the form of more holiday or an acceleration of any deferred stock awards or a relaxation or even deletion of any irksome post termination restrictions. Your decision as to whether to take a pay cut of some sort, or to take redundancy will depend on a lot of personal factors. If you are happy to leave and will find another job easily then this may be a blessing in disguise. If you will find it difficult to find new employment, you may be better off accepting a pay cut but negotiating tougher on its terms.

Corinne Aldridge, head of employment at Kingsley Napley, a law firm, says it is not just star footballers and chief executives who are under pressure to agree to pay cuts in light of the coronavirus epidemic. Many employers are calling on senior managers like yourself to “do the right thing” too. In some organisations, employees across the board have been asked to sign up to a voluntary pay cut, sometimes in return for reduced hours. Others are offering unpaid leave and sabbaticals with the promise of employees returning to work under normal conditions when the crisis is over. Another approach is to request senior executives take the strain, so helping to delay the prospect of redundancies. The moral and business arguments for sharing the pain are clear, but individuals do need to weigh up how the financial and practical implications square with this.

The obvious question is whether you can afford a 10 per cent cut. From what I am seeing, reductions are typically between 20 per cent to 40 per cent of salary so your 10 per cent would not be unreasonable in the current context. Furthermore, if you refuse to take the pay cut, you may open yourself to accusations of not being a team player and also to the risk of redundancy anyway. What is more worrying is the open-ended nature of the proposal. You should try to get assurance that any change is not permanent and tell them that the proposal for a review gives you little comfort. There may also be ramifications if you are ultimately let go. You would want any redundancy compensation to be on the basis of pre-cut pay and you could perhaps ask for that assurance.

Another consideration is whether the cut is to your monthly salary only or it would impact other benefits such as pension contributions, holiday allowance and commission or bonus arrangements. Ironically, there may be a personal tax benefit. While it may seem insensitive at the current time to mention discrimination claims, it is worth questioning to what extent others of your grade or particular team are also being asked to share the pain.

The last issue is how your employer intends to formalise this new arrangement — via a simple email confirmation of acceptance or will a formal contract addendum be prepared? For most, the form may not matter but it will be vitally important that any changes reflect what has been agreed to avoid future disputes. As a management consultant, you will no doubt be attuned to the financial position and profit outlook of your company, client project pipelines and overhead costs. I am sure this has all been factored into the request you have received.
 
Messages
1,121
Nothing to disagree with in that commentary. But finding out how others have been treated is fraught with challenges and is unlikely to yield much from past experience - everyone tends to be in it for themselves under such situations. Seeking clarity on some of the points mentioned - such as reinstatement of salary rather than review all makes sense. But finding an employer to respond positively is unlikely - the future is simply too uncertain. In headhunting and consultancy the success all hinges on landing invoiceable client work - it is that work that pays for staff. Otherwise each consultant or recruiter is simply a cost - and an expensive one at that after adding NICs and pension contributions etc. If the target segments for the consultancy are affected, they may not have the activity to buy consulting services or recruit staff. By all means worth a try on all those points. But employers are usually one step ahead (at least the good ones are) on push backs from employees on all these matters.
 
Last edited:

Wagons-Lits

Member
Messages
250
Nothing to disagree with in that commentary. But finding out how others have been treated is fraught with challenges and is unlikely to yield much from past experience - everyone tends to be in it for themselves under such situations. Seeking clarity on some of the points mentioned - such as reinstatement of salary rather than review all makes sense. But finding an employer to respond positively is unlikely - the future is simply too uncertain. In headhunting and consultancy the success all hinges on landing invoiceable client work - it is that work that pays for staff. Otherwise each consultant or recruiter is simply a cost - and an expensive one at that after adding NICs and pension contributions etc. If the target segments for the consultancy are affected, they may not have the activity to buy consulting services or recruit staff. By all means worth a try on all those points. But employers are usually one step ahead (at least the good ones are) on push backs from employees on all these matters.
I think the other point to add here is this is largely dependant on who is delivering that message - If it's a top tier law firm the employer is much more likely to sit up and pay attention, but of course that costs substantial money in the form of a retainer and billable hours and for many people that many not be an option. The article is more targeted to professionals working for larger employers but the lessons still stand, as does the law