Tweet
Hi.
I have a friend who has worked as a dental nurse in a practice for the past 3 years.
A year ago ownership of the practice changed. Prior to the change she worked 4 days a week - 3 as a nurse and 1 taking a turn manning the reception/phone. This was an agreeable situation and her normal contracted hours were for the 4 days. After the change the new owners brought in a full time receptionist they already employed elsewhere. The nurse had her number of normal days reduced to 3 but now included more hours per day that the new owners have classed as overtime. The actual hours worked in total with the new owners are about the same as those worked with the old owners.
As I see it her t&c's have changed regarding her hours and days of work to her detriment as the number of normal hours has been reduced. Even although her total hours are the same there is an advantage to the new owners in having some of them classed as overtime allowing them to reduce them if necessary without penalty.
Under TUPE this variation of contract terms is not allowed unless for ETO reasons. Does the reorganisation of the workforce by way of employing a fulltime receptionist constitute a legitimate ETO (meaning less hours of work for the nurse)
or
does the fact that for the past year she has been working the same hours, albeit some classed as overtime, mean that the new owners have simple changed her contract to suit themselves (by re-classifying some hours) and that no organisation of the workforce has taken place which reduces the need for labour (which, from what I gather, is one of the few organisation reasons the courts recognise).
Many thanks in advance for any replies.
I have a friend who has worked as a dental nurse in a practice for the past 3 years.
A year ago ownership of the practice changed. Prior to the change she worked 4 days a week - 3 as a nurse and 1 taking a turn manning the reception/phone. This was an agreeable situation and her normal contracted hours were for the 4 days. After the change the new owners brought in a full time receptionist they already employed elsewhere. The nurse had her number of normal days reduced to 3 but now included more hours per day that the new owners have classed as overtime. The actual hours worked in total with the new owners are about the same as those worked with the old owners.
As I see it her t&c's have changed regarding her hours and days of work to her detriment as the number of normal hours has been reduced. Even although her total hours are the same there is an advantage to the new owners in having some of them classed as overtime allowing them to reduce them if necessary without penalty.
Under TUPE this variation of contract terms is not allowed unless for ETO reasons. Does the reorganisation of the workforce by way of employing a fulltime receptionist constitute a legitimate ETO (meaning less hours of work for the nurse)
or
does the fact that for the past year she has been working the same hours, albeit some classed as overtime, mean that the new owners have simple changed her contract to suit themselves (by re-classifying some hours) and that no organisation of the workforce has taken place which reduces the need for labour (which, from what I gather, is one of the few organisation reasons the courts recognise).
Many thanks in advance for any replies.
Comment