implied consent - employment changes

[bogstandard]

The requirements are:

* the break must be in one block
* it cannot be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in the middle* you are allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises where you work
* your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets these conditions

obviously this isn't what some are looking for so it will be ignored.

[mailsort6]

If you have agreed to a contract you should stick to it. If you are asked to make changes that fall outside your contract of employment this is a breach of contract. If you start consenting to practices that fall outside you contract when things go wrong you might not be successful at a employment tribunal because you had consented to the breach.

[Himaggen]

Guys-there are many sites (up to date information) which explains the LAW regarding implied consent.somewhere on another Post.I gave a link to some of these.It is not a load of 'tosh'.i remember in my previous job.we had always been given anextra tea break. When a new boss came, he tried to do away with it, but couldn't because it had been adopted by habit and repute. When time permits, i will look up the links again and you can read through tem yourselves. Cheers.

Just to clarify my tosh comment, that was only in relation to the delivery of a lapsed duty and after having done so it becoming contactually acceptable by implication.
Meal breaks are a completely different thing, if the 'rest break' rules are points of law, then look at the situation as just that. Your Employers representatives have spent a number of years allowing you to break the law; they are requested to no longer do so and their superiors insist on the implementation of this request. They can do either of two things break the law again or toe the line according to the law.
If I were a Manager I'd toe the line, (until the Law via a Professional and through my Employer was changed otherwise). This means that asking us and acting upon it will achieve you nothing, the only way you could use implied consent as your justification would be through a judgement of Law only. You'd very likely require a Barrister to make your case, which would probably only be feasible if undertaken by the Union.

[stokes11eg]

Guys-there are many sites (up to date information) which explains the LAW regarding implied consent.somewhere on another Post.I gave a link to some of these.It is not a load of 'tosh'.i remember in my previous job.we had always been given anextra tea break. When a new boss came, he tried to do away with it, but couldn't because it had been adopted by habit and repute. When time permits, i will look up the links again and you can read through tem yourselves. Cheers.

Just to clarify my tosh comment, that was only in relation to the delivery of a lapsed duty and after having done so it becoming contactually acceptable by implication.
Meal breaks are a completely different thing, if the 'rest break' rules are points of law, then look at the situation as just that. Your Employers representatives have spent a number of years allowing you to break the law; they are requested to no longer do so and their superiors insist on the implementation of this request. They can do either of two things break the law again or toe the line according to the law.
If I were a Manager I'd toe the line, (until the Law via a Professional and through my Employer was changed otherwise). This means that asking us and acting upon it will achieve you nothing, the only way you could use implied consent as your justification would be through a judgement of Law only. You'd very likely require a Barrister to make your case, which would probably only be feasible if undertaken by the Union.

Hi, Himaggen-only by not taking a break are you contravening law I think the gist of the original argument was
when to take the breaks---in our office, in the days of second deliveries,everyone had it when they came back. no problem there.After S.D.D. came in that changed. most people had part of their break prior to leaving the office, and many
had a short break -en-route. This was o;kayed by Management.Still think other countries have it right, with Staff being alowed to have all of their break half way through the walk, when you most need it.Cheers.

[bogstandard]

does implied consent specifically relate to doing work not proper to your pay grade for free.
i fail to see how asking you to perform a body of work proper to your pay grade is an employment change, the bottom of the 318 says "or as directed".
Best of luck to you though if you get any milage out of it.

[stokes11eg]

does implied consent specifically relate to doing work not proper to your pay grade for free.
i fail to see how asking you to perform a body of work proper to your pay grade is an employment change, the bottom of the 318 says "or as directed".
Best of luck to you though if you get any milage out of it.

Hi. bog standard,if you take on a job, with certain conditions attached, for example hours worked, and what those hours are,or have been for a number of years,that's contractual'and any changes to that can be deemed a breach of contract. Everyone accepts that from time to time, minor changes may be necessarry(But even then should be properly consented to,in writing) -you do not have to accept these changes.
Loosely,however if Management suggest you 'trial' a new way of working.with the usual false promise that if it does not work things will revert back to normal--after a time the new working conditions become contractual by habit and custom, and R/M can impose them upon you.what should happen of course is every time they want a change,you should be given a new contract, and if you say no you could have a case against them.

[Tman]

for example hours worked, and what those hours are,or have been for a number of years,that's contractual'and any changes to that can be deemed a breach of contract. Everyone accepts that from time to time, minor changes may be necessarry(But even then should be properly consented to,in writing) -you do not have to accept these changes.

Correct, up to a point. Management should normally inform the staff of potential changes to thier contracts in advance, and provided that notice is adequate enough, then no rules are broken.

As the employment courts love to say "management have the right to manage". A good example of that is MCs closing on Sundays (that old mythical drop in mail volumes again) with staff losing Sunday rate money, but provided enough notice is given, staff have no comeback with regard to loss of earnings.
They close whatever you do or don't consent to.

[stokes11eg]

for example hours worked, and what those hours are,or have been for a number of years,that's contractual'and any changes to that can be deemed a breach of contract. Everyone accepts that from time to time, minor changes may be necessarry(But even then should be properly consented to,in writing) -you do not have to accept these changes.

Correct, up to a point. Management should normally inform the staff of potential changes to thier contracts in advance, and provided that notice is adequate enough, then no rules are broken.

As the employment courts love to say "management have the right to manage". A good example of that is MCs closing on Sundays (that old mythical drop in mail volumes again) with staff losing Sunday rate money, but provided enough notice is given, staff have no comeback with regard to loss of earnings.
They close whatever you do or don't consent to.

Yes, but you have to AGREE to the changes--

[Tman]

I suppose that depends on where you draw the line as to what constitutes "changes" then.

Plenty must have felt aggrieved by the loss of Sundays in MCs, but whether they "agreed" to change or not, the MCs still closed. Those staff probably felt that having worked a Sunday shift for X years meant that it would or should carry on, but events proved otherwise. Unfortunately things change, and not always for the better, but what are those MC people going to do? Turn up on a Sunday regardless, and demand the gates be unlocked so they can work, and hope RM take pity and pay them....

[stokes11eg]

I suppose that depends on where you draw the line as to what constitutes "changes" then.

Plenty must have felt aggrieved by the loss of Sundays in MCs, but whether they "agreed" to change or not, the MCs still closed. Those staff probably felt that having worked a Sunday shift for X years meant that it would or should carry on, but events proved otherwise. Unfortunately things change, and not always for the better, but what are those MC people going to do? Turn up on a Sunday regardless, and demand the gates be unlocked so they can work, and hope RM take pity and pay them....

Difficult one as Sunday would not have been regonised as an official day of work--but it could be argued that having worked it for so long-it was 'contractual'---it would have been nice if the Unions could have fought this,(and won)
going back to agreements,google up Directgov,and in particular section on disagreeing to changes in your contract--
some interesting reading here.

[Tman]

Difficult one as Sunday would not have been regonised as an official day of work--but it could be argued that having worked it for so long-it was 'contractual'---

It WAS contracted hours for us. It still went.....

it would have been nice if the Unions could have fought this,(and won)

Maybe you think the union(s) have more power than they have? The employers decide these things, and ultimately they happen with or without employee's consent.
Employees unfortunately don't have any rights regarding things staying as they are indefinitely, and if the changes don't suit, hard luck. Change happens constantly.

[stokes11eg]

Difficult one as Sunday would not have been regonised as an official day of work--but it could be argued that having worked it for so long-it was 'contractual'---

It WAS contracted hours for us. It still went.....

it would have been nice if the Unions could have fought this,(and won)

Maybe you think the union(s) have more power than they have? The employers decide these things, and ultimately they happen with or without employee's consent.
Employees unfortunately don't have any rights regarding things staying as they are indefinitely, and if the changes don't suit, hard luck. Change happens constantly.

Yes, but We do still have rights---we just need to fight for them.