Can employer demote or drastically change duties without consent

[Chuck Finley]

Just a quick few questions on the law around being demoted while on notice period.

A friend of mine is in a similar situation to mine (if you guys remember my contract malarkey)
She has a job working in IT. Part of her job involves looking after servers and requires high level access to do so.

Due the the employer not liking the fact that she wants to leave and has handed her notice in, they believe she is a disgruntled employee (she mentioned to them shes not happy here for resignation reason) - they have removed her access to servers and are now asking her to carry out jobs she wasn't hired to do. She must serve her notice period obviously but does she have any options?
It states in the contract that she can be assigned to another role. I think this is known as a flexibility clause?

Essentially she has been demoted without notice (no change in job title just a big change in day to day duties and responsibilities). Does the employer have to provide her notice before making such a change?
Do they have to get her consent?

 

[Newchodge]

Any employer with any sense will remove access to anything vital if someomne is leaving.

 

[Chuck Finley]

Any employer with any sense will remove access to anything vital if someomne is leaving.

I would too, but that isn't the point.
Can an employer drastically change duties without consent or consultation is what I was asking.

If you would remove access and their job depends on it, then why would you have a notice period. Why not just let them go as soon as they have their access removed. Considering their day to day requires said access.

 

[Mr D]

Has she had a cut in pay?
It doesn't sound wrong. It sounds like the business is being protected from the risk of a disgruntled employee. If she doesn't have access then cannot cause the kind of damage that can harm the business.
She may not personally have any plans that way but how can the management be certain of that? People who do not plan to cause problems and people who decide to cause problems will answer questions the same way.

However you are asking on a business forum so we may give a different answer as business owners. If someone was to come on here for advice about what to do about an unhappy employee with high level access working their notice then I daresay some of us would suggest what has happened.
Risks can be managed or ignored. The cost of ignoring risks can be high.

 

[obscure]

You friend agreed to the changes in advance when they agreed to the flexibility clause/signed the contract. Also this is no different than putting someone on gardening leave. The company is protecting sensitive data/systems and has a right to do so.

Provided they are paying the same salary and the job title hasn't changed I can't see any grounds for complaint/action.

 

[Ashley_Price]

So, she isn't being "demoted", she wants to resign, and they have taken the action of removing her ability to access possible sensitive data, as others have said above and they are within their rights to do this. She has mentioned she is no longer happy, and they have taken precautions against possible sabotage, or at the very least mistakes and errors creeping in on sensitive areas, because she may not do her job to 100% efficiency during her notice period.

What some firms do (e.g. accountants and solicitors) is as soon as someone hands in their notice, they are allowed to leave at the end of that day - as there is little work they can do that doesn't allow them access to sensitive data.

 

[Bob Morgan]

Sensible Employers will say "Go Home" and pay the Notice Period!

 

[Chuck Finley]

They just have a hard on for getting them to work their notice period. With the new duties, she will not be doing what she was originally hired to do but they do not want to concede garden leave as this would mean paying her for not doing anything. And letting her go would concede that she got what she wanted, i.e. leaving the company before the notice period ends.

I suggested telling them that since I am not doing actual duties which will help the business i.e. looking after sensitive data, and the access to this has been resolved. Then why not let me go and everyone wins!

All legal on their side and thats not what we are disputing. Its the fact that access has been revoked and she will now be doing bits and bobs around the office with a 50k+ salary which a part time GCSE grad could do. Not a good use of anyones time.

 

[Chuck Finley]

Sensible Employers will say "Go Home" and pay the Notice Period!

Exactly! But they don't want to concede that she got what she wanted by leaving the company early.

They've written to her that: any duties you perform on customer data will be carried out via physical supervision.

I mean come on! They didn't let her leave early because they said they are short staffed and need her to complete the 3 months notice (fine by her although preference was shortening the notice period) - but at the same time any task she does, which actually relates to her day job and skillset will be supervised. Mind boggling use of time if they are short staffed.

What is your advice on this? As I stated before I've read her contract and it includes a flexibility clause, thus they are perfectly entitled to make the above changes. So this isn't an issue about whether or not they can change her duties or if she has to work them or not.

 

[Newchodge]

Exactly! But they don't want to concede that she got what she wanted by leaving the company early.

They've written to her that: any duties you perform on customer data will be carried out via physical supervision.

I mean come on! They didn't let her leave early because they said they are short staffed and need her to complete the 3 months notice (fine by her although preference was shortening the notice period) - but at the same time any task she does, which actually relates to her day job and skillset will be supervised. Mind boggling use of time if they are short staffed.

What is your advice on this? As I stated before I've read her contract and it includes a flexibility clause, thus they are perfectly entitled to make the above changes. So this isn't an issue about whether or not they can change her duties or if she has to work them or not.

Advice on what? You agree that what they are doing is legal. What do you want advice on?

 

[Chuck Finley]

Advice on what? You agree that what they are doing is legal. What do you want advice on?

On what would be the correct thing to do? This isn't the legal section

 

[Newchodge]

On what would be the correct thing to do? This isn't the legal section

Correct in what way, if not legally? And for whom?

 

[Mr D]

On what would be the correct thing to do? This isn't the legal section

By what you have said the company is acting correctly. Inefficiently maybe but no law against that.

 

[Mr D]

Exactly! But they don't want to concede that she got what she wanted by leaving the company early.

They've written to her that: any duties you perform on customer data will be carried out via physical supervision.

I mean come on! They didn't let her leave early because they said they are short staffed and need her to complete the 3 months notice (fine by her although preference was shortening the notice period) - but at the same time any task she does, which actually relates to her day job and skillset will be supervised. Mind boggling use of time if they are short staffed.

What is your advice on this? As I stated before I've read her contract and it includes a flexibility clause, thus they are perfectly entitled to make the above changes. So this isn't an issue about whether or not they can change her duties or if she has to work them or not.

Again, risk management.
Making sure she doesn't mess things up on purpose.

Be easiest all round if simply sent home and not enter the company again. Perhaps the bosses aren't keen on rewarding those who leave like that.

 

[Chuck Finley]

Again, risk management.
Making sure she doesn't mess things up on purpose.

Be easiest all round if simply sent home and not enter the company again. Perhaps the bosses aren't keen on rewarding those who leave like that.

The boss doesn't like anyone who wants to leave. He is a narcissist and if you kiss his ring he is happy and knows you exist.
If you want to leave you are dead to him.
Perfectly legal but not a great use of everyones time to put a expert into duties that they are clearly overqualified for.

I guess my question is, is the best course of action for her just to put her head down and "work" for the next 3 months?

 

[kulture]

This is the second thread on the same subject even though this is "for a different person". You simply do not like the advice you are getting. The company is acting legally. The company is acting sensibly. In many cases it is best to keep the employee (soon to be ex) around so you can ask questions and enable the handover more effectively. You would take them off any work that could be important. You would not want them to start with the new employer before you have successfully replaced them and done a decent hand over. You would not necessarily want to send them on gardening leave as you may suspect that they would abuse this by starting with the new employer early.
Your current employer may be explaining this poorly. May indeed be a bit vindictive, but it could easily be argued that there is a good business reason for it and you are "imagining" the vindictive parts.
I always think that it is best to carry on with the existing employer, do the best you can and leave on good terms. After all, who knows in the future you may want a job with them again or one of your managers there may move on to a new company where you too may wish to join. Screw around now and your future job moves could be scuppered.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Seems to me somebody is looking for a problem, or for a loophole to wriggle out of a contract.

Not only is it sensible to remove said ‘friend’ from access to confidential information - it is a duty they owe to clients and suppliers.

As long as the replacement duties aren’t actively demeaning (eg being required to parade outside dressed as a panda), and don’t exceed the provisions of the contract (eg shift work or additional hours), then said friend is best advised to stop whining and go through the motions of the duties given until they leave

 

[Chuck Finley]

Is it also sensible to waste everyones time?
Saying that we cannot reduce the contract period due to being understaffed and at the same time saying that any duties involving actual work will be carried out under supervision.

My point was that if the responsibilities for a member of staff who was hired for a particular purpose are taken away, then let them go.
Any sensible employer would not pay >50k for an employee who is doing trivial tasks.

Do you keep your employees on if they want to to leave, continuing to pay them a tonne of money to basically sit around? That's very sensible. What makes you think the work and handover tasks they do will be in good faith considering you have demoted them?

I agree with you that its sensible to remove access to sensitive data I would do exactly that. Thats not what Im arguing. Im saying why keep them on just out of spite.

Check out the malicious compliance page on reddit. It fits employers who argue "im not doing anything illegal, its all within contract"
Some employers forget that there is a great deal of responsibilities and power placed in staff and at the end of the day they make you a lot of money.
If they want to leave you shouldn't take it personally!

I think we can close off this thread as everyone has an opinion and not really seeing eye to eye.

 

[Mr D]

Is it also sensible to waste everyones time?
Saying that we cannot reduce the contract period due to being understaffed and at the same time saying that any duties involving actual work will be carried out under supervision.

My point was that if the responsibilities for a member of staff who was hired for a particular purpose are taken away, then let them go.
Any sensible employer would not pay >50k for an employee who is doing trivial tasks.

Do you keep your employees on if they want to to leave, continuing to pay them a tonne of money to basically sit around? That's very sensible. What makes you think the work and handover tasks they do will be in good faith considering you have demoted them?

I agree with you that its sensible to remove access to sensitive data I would do exactly that. Thats not what Im arguing. Im saying why keep them on just out of spite.

Check out the malicious compliance page on reddit. It fits employers who argue "im not doing anything illegal, its all within contract"
Some employers forget that there is a great deal of trust placed in staff and at the end of the day they make you a lot of money.
If they want to leave you shouldn't take it personally!

I think we can close off this thread as everyone has an opinion and not really seeing eye to eye.

What you see as sensible and what the bosses see as sensible are not necessarily the same.

 

[fisicx]

I read both threads and still can’t see what the problem.

If the company wants to pay her top dollar for doing basic work for three months then let them do it. It might not be efficienct but It’s not illegal.

 

[Awinner2]

Seems to me that the OP across two threads doesn't want to listen to the advice being given, Let's stop answering as he is only talking for a n other anyway.

 

[Chuck Finley]

Seems to me that the OP across two threads doesn't want to listen to the advice being given, Let's stop answering as he is only talking for a n other anyway.

Literally what I just said. "Lets stop answering" lol you sound like a 6 year old in the play ground

What do you want me to listen to exactly? I said its not sensible for the employer to do this, what are my options. Can the changes be rejected etc. What would be the outcome if the changes in duty are rejected by me etc

But ok mate, I'm the one not listening.

There was an idiot on here earlier who said its sensible to keep paying an employee who is disgruntled, on the pay roll but have them basically just sit around.

I wasn't asking about the legal aspect, I did initialy, but here I was asking what are the repercussions of rejecting said changes in duties. I wasn't asking if its sensible to remove access for an employee who is leaving to sensitive data. But yeah you're right IM the one not listening

 

[fisicx]

The repercussions are disciplinary which may result in them being sacked and this being noted on their reference.

 

[davidlee21]

No, Employer can not change duties without consent.

 

[Chuck Finley]

I know my communication hasn't been the best, so I would like to apologise for my previous post.

This is what I'm confused about. Duties changing drastically without concent. Some are saying they can't do that and others are saying she will be sacked with note on reference. Reading elsewhere on the internet there seems to be a lot of use of the word reasonable.
Can I ask them to provide a new job description?

In my job where I require access to certain software we use for accounting. If the access is revoked, I will not be able to do much real work, will just be things that they have lying around to get done. My situation is done, I've decided to put my head down and do whatever I am told within reason, probably not to the best of my ability.

But in my friends case she has had her access to computer systems revoked when she is(used to be) an admin. Hence my asking that can she reject the new changes especially as they were changed without consent.
I know what some are saying, that they can legally. But others are saying they cannot.

 

[fisicx]

It's in the contract. If they want to use her on reception answering phones or in the stock room sorting files then they can do this. The contract says she can be assigned to another role which means they can ask her to do pretty much whatever they want.

 

[obscure]

I know what some are saying, that they can legally. But others are saying they cannot.

ROFL seriously? Are you so set on ignoring the good advise already given that you will grasp the straw of a lone voice? One from a poster who has a total of 8 inconsequential (and in this case incorrect) posts over experts who do this stuff for a living?

Time to update the block list me thinks.

 

[Mark T Jones]

What they are doing is almost certainly legal.

If they are being petty, the best way to defeat them is to enjoy the tasks they have given you.

If they have other reasons, then it is both of your interests for you to get and and enjoy the tasks.

 

[STDFR33]

When you hand in your notice, you have to expect that your notice period isn't going to resemble the time you have been there. You are counting down the days, and your employer is looking at replacements. You both see each other differently.

Any sensible employer would restrict such access. It isn't worth the associated risks by still giving you access to critical systems, sensitive information etc.

I've always (of course) been paid the same during my notice period. I wouldn't care what tasks they gave me to do during that time - within reason. I'm an accountant. If they asked me to do photocopying instead of working on accounts / tax, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

If you are offended by your employer taking what most would see as sensible precautions, I think it says more about you than it does them.

 

[Chuck Finley]

ROFL seriously? Are you so set on ignoring the good advise already given that you will grasp the straw of a lone voice? One from a poster who has a total of 8 inconsequential (and in this case incorrect) posts over experts who do this stuff for a living?

Time to update the block list me thinks.

Believe it or not this is not the only website on the internet. I have heard elsewhere that *without consent* they cannot make changes.

I hear what everyone has said and accept it. I was more looking for advice on how one can deal with it and how to convince an employer to just be let go!
"Expert" - You take photos for a living

 

[Chuck Finley]

What they are doing is almost certainly legal.

If they are being petty, the best way to defeat them is to enjoy the tasks they have given you.

If they have other reasons, then it is both of your interests for you to get and and enjoy the tasks.

Thank you. A reply to what I was asking. Thanks, Mark.

 

[Chuck Finley]

When you hand in your notice, you have to expect that your notice period isn't going to resemble the time you have been there. You are counting down the days, and your employer is looking at replacements. You both see each other differently.

Any sensible employer would restrict such access. It isn't worth the associated risks by still giving you access to critical systems, sensitive information etc.

I've always (of course) been paid the same during my notice period. I wouldn't care what tasks they gave me to do during that time - within reason. I'm an accountant. If they asked me to do photocopying instead of working on accounts / tax, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

If you are offended by your employer taking what most would see as sensible precautions, I think it says more about you than it does them.

<removed>
I agree taking these precautions is sensible, at no point have I said I do not agree with them. My point and the purpose for seeking this advice was on how to deal with it, how to effectively communicate that due to the duties being changed so drastically.
So I guess this is also a question on the meaning of the word 'reasonable' in the contract wording. But I have understood that the majority of posters hear have stated that its within reason to remove all aspects of the original job description and assign you to a new role. This I accept, there is no need for more debate on this point.

 

[STDFR33]

Being happy with taking photocopies when you are a qualified account and bending over says a lot about you too!
I agree taking these precautions is sensible, at no point have I said I do not agree with them. My point and the purpose for seeking this advice was on how to deal with it, how to effectively communicate that due to the duties being changed so drastically.
So I guess this is also a question on the meaning of the word 'reasonable' in the contract wording. But I have understood that the majority of posters hear have stated that its within reason to remove all aspects of the original job description and assign you to a new role. This I accept, there is no need for more debate on this point.

Why cause a fuss, when in the grand scheme of things, your salary is the same and you know you'll be moving on. If they want to pay a qualified accountant to photocopy, more fool them I say.

In the workplace, you need to pick your battles carefully. What's the point picking a battle when your foot is half way out of the door?

 

[Chuck Finley]

Why cause a fuss, when in the grand scheme of things, your salary is the same and you know you'll be moving on. If they want to pay a qualified accountant to photocopy, more fool them I say.

In the workplace, you need to pick your battles carefully. What's the point picking a battle when your foot is half way out of the door?

Fair enough. A totally understandable position.

 

[Mr D]

Believe it or not this is not the only website on the internet. I have heard elsewhere that *without consent* they cannot make changes.

I hear what everyone has said and accept it. I was more looking for advice on how one can deal with it and how to convince an employer to just be let go!
"Expert" - You take photos for a living

Yes without consent they cannot change contract.
And by the sound of it the contract hasn't been changed.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

The company will most likely be looking for someone to replace this person, and could well want the use of them to be able to pass on any information to the new person when recruited, so not a waste of time or money and they need to pay for the time regardless of if they work or have gardening leave