Refusing a cut in working hours

[Jones_z1989]

My company currently underwent a restructuring of the sector I am in. This resulted in a business consultation period at which I was told my post was at risk of redundancy. It transpired that I was not to be made redundant, but for my contracted hours to be reduced from 36 to 28 hours per week. I have consistently refused the change, due to the drop in pay and the changing of my rota (which would impact my family life). The company have deemed this suitable and subsequently denied my application for voluntary redundancy. The basis of which is that I am also hired as a Personal Trainer, and could recoup the money through this (I’m on a different contract for this). I have also received a letter stating a 4 week trial period of ‘suitable alternative employment’, but it’s the same as the proposal and something I thought only offered when your post was being made redundant. The company have ‘successfully trailed this across a few centres’, however I do not think my claims of not accepting the proposal are unreasonable. Any thoughts?

[Jones_z1989]

Sorry, added to this thread. Initially it was consented with to reduce my contracted hours from 36 to 28. It is now under the guise of ‘suitable alternative employment’ with the same T&C’s, pay rate, role responsibilities etc. Even though my post has not been made redundant. With me turning down what they deem to be a reasonable job offer, I lose my right to redundancy. It seems like a very conniving way to avoid paying it

[ULA]

Can you confirm how long you have been employed?

[Jones_z1989]

12 years

[ULA]

My summary of what you have set out in your posts is that what appears to have started out as a redundancy process has become you being offered a revised contract on all the same terms but reduced hours. You have confused me in your posts as the first one states "I have consistently refused the change ....." yet in the second post you have said "Initially it was consented with to reduce my contracted hours from 36 to 28 ..." Can you confirm whether you have consented to the change in hours?

Given this was originally set out to you as a redundancy process and you have received a letter stating a 4 week trial period of ‘suitable alternative employment’, this is all language that is used in such a process.

Was voluntary redundancy on offer to employees?

Has this same situation happened to other employees in your sector?

If this was a true redundancy process then there are reasons for which you can refuse a suitable alternative positions and still receive a redundancy package. However, if your employer does not agree with you then it would down to you to bring a claim and prove that it was not a suitable alternative position in order to try and get your redundancy package.

[Jones_z1989]

Apologies. I do realise I wasn’t as concise as I could be.

Invited to a business consultation. At consultation was told Fitness Sector was undergoing a restructure and that my position was at risk of redundancy. Whole proposal for the site was 96 hours cut down to 56 for the whole centre.

initial consultation - proposed to me that my position would not be made redundant. That because there are hours available, that they would reduce my contracted hours from 36 to 28 per week, to mitigate need for redundancy. (This was offered to my colleague too).

in consultations following, I rejected proposal based on financial viability and implementation of new rota causing detriment to work-life balance.

Company refuted my reasons, claiming what they were offering to be reasonable as suitable alternative employment.

I applied for voluntary redundancy. Rejected once and then rejected by appeal on the grounds of it being suitable alternative employment.

After the appeal, I received a letter stating ‘trail of suitable alternative employment.’ I rejected the proposal on the same basis. I also question why I am being offered suitable alternative employment when I’m not being made redundant.

I have now raised a grievance about the process.

What I am now trying to decipher is why I have been offered ‘suitable alternative employment’ when my initial proposal was to have my contracted hours cut from 36 to 28 per week. I thought it was offered to employees whose positions have been made redundant.

I have not consented to the change in hours on my contract. I’m now working under protest.

I hope this is clearer

[ULA]

That is much clearer many thanks for the explanation.

Effectively what it appears to be is that under a restructuring of your area which required a reduction in the number of hours, jobs were put under notice of redundancy. However, to try and avoid that situation they have instead offered staff a new position of the same job but on reduced hours as a way of potentially keeping people employed but meeting the needs of the business to reduce hours.

Given that this has been a redundancy consultation process then in my view this new position is being offered to you as a suitable alternative role, albeit the same role.

However another question I have, is that as part of the process is anyone being made redundant or are you all being offered effectively the same position but on reduced hours? Depending in the answer may lead me to think that the company may be trying to deal with this in another way under the guise of a redundancy consultation.

Was voluntary redundancy an option given by the company?

[Jones_z1989]

Ahh this is disappointing to here. Yes, that was exactly it. I was asked to reduce my hours to mitigate the need for redundancies.

I was under the impression that because they were reducing my contractual hours, that my post was not effectively being made redundant and the offer of suitable alternative employment was unnecessary given the role itself was still needed. They stated that all my other terms and conditions would be the same and the only change would be the hours. I essentially saw it as the same job for less pay, and maybe an intentional attempt to place me in a position whereby they could deny redundancy pay and terminate my existing contract.

The company went through a whole restructure on a nationwide scale. Within my centre, colleagues on zero hours contracts were let go. , with one exception as she had served more than two years. She was offered redundancy and/or a suitable alternative role. The other colleague who is contracted as I am, had the same proposal and accepted the offer.

I applied for Voluntary Redundancy, but was rejected and then rejected on appeal (the company stating that I could make up the shortfall through my other income as a Personal Trainer with them. Though I have no contracted hours and am personally responsible to accrue any custom). When I initially asked about Redundancy, I was told it was not an option. That this was the final offer and that changes would be imposed as of 27/02/23. Should redundancy have been offered?

My own thoughts on this are that by offering it as suitable alternative employment, it has allowed them the scope to refuse redundancy on the basis of the offer being being reasonable. The only T&C's that change upon signing the new agreement are the hours and therefore pay. Everything else is as it was. Rather than it being a fundamental change in my terms and conditions, something that I would have to agree to.

Could this be seen as an intentional attempt at avoiding redundancy pay and an unlawful termination of my existing employment contract? I could be clutching at straws!!

[Jones_z1989]

Sorry. I will add that at the end of my final appeal letter it states, ‘I uphold the decision to reduce your contracted hours from 36 to 28’. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity, which is why I’m puzzled

[ULA]

By not seemingly continuing with a redundancy process and now turning it into a change to terms and conditions of employment i.e. your hours of work, it appears to have moved from one process to another. However the employer is continuing the confusion by labelling your currently job but on less hours as a suitable alternative job.

At any part of the consultation process was it set out what your redundancy entitlement package would be?

I do not want to confuse this more but under redundancy if a suitable alternative position is offered it is done so on a 4 week trial basis, an individual at the end of this period can refuse the job (there are strict timescales around this and you may have to say when that period ends) but is has to be for reasons which are typically around:

• lower pay
• longer journey to work or lack of public transport
• extra costs of getting to work
• disruption to family life, eg problems with childcare
• health issues

There then comes the issue of redundancy pay but if your employer refuses to accept your reasons and will not pay your redundancy pay then it will be an Early Conciliation process via ACAS and if that does not work an ET claim. If you did need to make and ET claim this could be a lengthy process up to 18 months approx.

If the company actually views it as a change of terms and conditions for you and your other colleague on the same contractual arrangements as you, then in summary once consultation has taken place and the company still believes the changes to the terms are required,then they offer you a contract with those new terms. There is no trying it on a 4 week trial basis as a suitable alternative. In harsh terms its the new contract or not. If you do not agree to the changes then you would need to let your employer know in writing by raising a grievance which it appears you have already done.

I am struggling to advise further and I guess one question in all of this is whether or not you want to remain at the company even if on reduced hours?

[Jones_z1989]

It is incredibly confusing. I’ve attached what I have been sent today. Which is an amendment to my terms and conditions.

[Jones_z1989]

And no, irrespective of whether this process has been done legally or followed due process, I think what they are/have done is morally and ethically sketchy. Now it’s a case of whether or not I go with something in my pocket or not.

[ULA]

I have removed the document as there was too much personal information not redacted.

This looks like a document making amendments to your terms and conditions not a redundancy process situation.

You said you raised a grievance what points did you put across. You seem to have had a response to this, have you been given the right to appeal?

[Jones_z1989]

Apologies, I must have sent over the wrong copy.

So I have no further right to appeal the outcome of the consultation period. Unfortunately I wasn’t savvy enough to realise what was going on at the time, but more fool me for not getting a legal perspective sooner.

I have raised a grievance about the process and the meeting is on Monday.

Points I have raised are in the email are:

Why was I offered suitable alternative employment, when my post was not being made redundant? By proceeding with this, it placed the company in a position whereby they could refuse redundancy on the basis of the offer being reasonable (with this in consideration, the alternative employment was the same in job role, responsibilities, rate of pay, everything but the hours pay. So given the circumstances, my refusal could be deemed unreasonable by them).

Why was it not made clear to me what suitable alternative employment actually pertains to? If I had known what this was and had been explained clearly to me during the meetings, it is something I would have challenged.

Is there anything else you would recommend to raise?

[Jones_z1989]

Also if the process wasn’t correct, what could I do about it?