Hi
Sorry for x-posting, need to get as many eyes to see this as possible, given the urgency of the question.
Is there a minimum period of time a company has to give employees for a company wide pay cut? Just been told that from Monday 14th, our salaries are being cut by 25%.
Is this legal, or is there a minimum notification period?
Thanks.
Anything relevant in your Contract of Employment? What is your payment frequency? Other than that, I would imagine, unfortunately, that the proposed cut be within the bounds of law.
Thanks for reply. Nothing in the contract. Usual payment frequency is monthly, payable on the 28th of the month. The pay cut is in the middle of the month....so 14 days at 95% pay (already on a 5% cut), then 17 days at
75%."slider" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
I don't want to add insult to injury, but it'll probably be 71.25% - 75% of 95%...
Still, better that than redundancy, eh?
You might want to try posting to uk.legal.moderated. They _seem_ to know what they are talking about.
Ask your union representative?
slider wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 16:33
uk.legal.moderated might be the best place - there are some well informed people there and the nutters are moderated away mostly.
It's not a crime.
The employer is proposing - "imposing" is its way of a "try-on" in the hope of getting away with it - a change to the agreement which is your current contract of employment.
You are not obliged to accept this, but if you do not, do not be too surprised if less palatable options come next.
If you are not a union member, maybe you now realise why some people are.
I also suggest uk.legal.moderated - but watch out ! No cross-posting is permitted there.
In message , slider writes
I've seen a similar question asked recently in Management Today, except that it was asked by an employer.
The short answer is that an employer can't unilaterally decide to reduce salaries unless there is already a provision for that in the contracts of employment. They can't unilaterally change the contract of employment to add a clause like that. You have a contract of employment even if there is nothing in writing.
The fact that your employer is trying to impose a cut is really worrying because it suggests that they don't understand their legal situation. That's almost as worrying as the threat of a pay cut. Someone with that little understanding of the situation may do something stupid that everyone will later regret.
You need to get real legal advice and a union is probably the simplest and fastest way of doing that. You need to get *real* legal advice and you aren't going to get that online from a newsgroup or web site. Failing that check whether your household insurance covers you for legal expenses. If so then hire your own lawyer. The union is almost certainly the better option though.
But before you say anything to your employer consider carefully what may happen if you and the other employees refuse to accept the cut. It's possible that your employer will have to close the company. Are you prepared to risk that?
What is being said here, I think, is that one can only do this if the employer breaches the contract, and there is no value of notice period that would mean that was not a breach.
And what is being said here is that, with the full contractual notice period (including any imposed by statute), and the statutory minimum redundancy payment, they can legally break the contract by making you redundant.
But they can't do that just because you refused to accept a pay cut, there has to be a justification for it. As I've said in another post, this employer seems frighteningly ignorant and could do something stupid. Getting a union involved could be best for the employees and the employer in this case.
Best bet is the CAB, I found them very good when faced with redundancy - but call now, they are bust & appointments can take some time.
AS an ex employer, if I had had to ask for a 25% pay cut, I would say that was the last alternative to calling in the receivers. It is bound to upset staff: the best will walk to other jobs, and you will be left with low paid dross. If there hasn't been a company meeting explaining what's going on, ask for one.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you want to make an issue of it.
Whether its legal or not hardly matters if you taking action busts the company a week sooner than it would have done.
>
Text below quoted from:
START QUOTE:
Statutory recognition
Statutory recognition is a legal right for unions and its members to seek negotiating rights from an employer who has refused to grant such rights voluntarily.
A union is entitled to seek recognition for a group of workers where at least 10 percent of the group are members of the union. This could be teachers and/or support staff. A statutory tribunal, known as the Central Arbitration Committee, considers the application from the union and representations from the employer.
Where a trade union is satisfied it has at least 10 percent of the staff in membership and can demonstrate that a majority of the staff are likely to support recognition, then the tribunal normally awards recognition automatically.
If there is uncertainty as to whether a majority of the staff support recognition, then the tribunal may call for a ballot of the group of workers. If a majority of the group votes in favour of recognition and that majority constitutes at least 40 per cent of the group then recognition is awarded.
END QUOTE
See the union.
That is not what I am saying. Proposing a change in terms is not the same as a breach of contract.
Again, I am not saying that. Ending a contract is not the same as breaking it, IMHO.
bargining"
Yes, but all that takes time measured in months, particulary if there is not enough current union membership and/or support and it has to go to ballot etc.
Try to view this from the side of the employer, he/she does this or closes the company with the loss of all jobs. The employees need to think hard on this decision. Maybe in the good times you have received pay rises so in the bad times the opposite must be accepted. It's not ALL roses when an employer.
"Eric Shune" wrote
... or why not just lose 25% of the jobs, and the remaining staff work 33% harder to keep their salaries the same?
Its probably because they are not having to work hard, that 25% need to go.
In general terms, more staff less well paid is a better option if business picks up.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.