Minimum period of notification of pay cut

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.

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.

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?

Genrally the need to cut staff costs by 25% arises from a commensurate drop in orders. If 3/4 of the workforce works

4/3 as hard, they'll get the same amount of work done as before, which will be more than the company needs.

Better to cut 50% of the jobs and have the remaining staff work

50% harder. They'll then produce 75% of what they did before, which'll be just right, and moreover the staff cost per unit produced will be lower, allowing the company to reduce its prices, which in turn might help it retain its customers.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

But if there is only 75% of the work to be done, then they can either

*all* work 75% as hard for 75% pay (which is what the employer is suggesting) or 75% of them can work 100% as hard for 100% of pay.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Not in the bounds of Employment Law it isnt, unless their is a specific, agreed, clause in the employment contract that states pay may be cut when Management feels necessary.

Whether the pay rate is stated or not in the Contract makes no difference, the usual weekly/monthly/hourly payment is the recognised payment for the job.

If the OP does not want to accept the pay cut, then he should write to the Manager/HR/personnel saying he will not accept the pay cut. They will then either pay him at the current rate,sack him, or make him redundant. (Yes, I know there are criteria to be met when making redundancies, but they can easily manipulate the requirements to ensure the OP is the one to go first). If he is scaked, then there is a very good chance of an Employment Tribunal ruling in his favour. Redundancy is harder to fight against. If he has been an employee for less than a year, he has virtually no rights. Up to the OP eventually. Take the pay cut, refuse it and likely to be out of a job, or gamble that they will keep him and pay the present rate. Alan.

If each of the staff has a unique skill, none of which can be dispensed with, that doesn't work.

The employer should really enter into discussions with staff when this sort of situation arises.

Many years ago in a small company I was working with (but not for), this sort of situation arose. I suspect management was quietly bricking themselves for a few months, but eventually told the workforce things were dire. Workforce went back into the office, and within a few minutes decided to ask the management if they could carry on working without getting paid that month. Management never actually thought to ask the workforce anything like this, but of course accepted the offer, and the company survived.

It's for exactly this sort of reason that consultations with staff should be undertaken. You may get staff volunteering for redundancy, or volunteering to take 3 months unpaid leave to undertake some project they've been thinking about for ages, or volunteering to go part-time.

Often, many options surface in such discussions which the management alone wouldn't have thought of, but which are beneficial to all sides and allow a company to get out of a temporary hole.