Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

SO angry on dh's behalf - can his employer do this?

31 replies

CountessDracula · 30/08/2005 10:17

DH is a lawyer. In his dept there are 3 partners, he is the most senior assistant and there are a few other assistants not as qualified as him.

The partners have agreed to provide a 24 hour on-call service for a helpline for one of their clients. They have decided that each of them and dh will take it in turns to be on call a week at a time. SO - every 4th week he will be on 24h call for 7 days This will presumably mean that we can't go to the cinema/theatre etc, can't go out and have a few drinks as he will have to be right on the ball, I run the risk of being woken up in the night when I am always bloody exhausted as it is etc etc

It's ok for the partners all of whom earn £250k+ but dh has (a) not been consulted about this, (b) not been offered any extra money and (c) is expected to just roll over and do it.

I think this constitues a change to the terms and conditions of his employment and that he should query this with them. It's not that he wants more money, but why should we have our lives effectively put on hold one week in 4? I think it is very unfair

Can they do this?

OP posts:

zippitippitoes · 30/08/2005 10:19

I would say it would be normal practice in this case to have an on call allowance and annual bonus.

How far off is he from bening offered a partnership?

Original poster

CountessDracula · 30/08/2005 10:31

He is not interested in partnership!

OP posts:

Blackduck · 30/08/2005 10:32

I would have thought it constitutes a change to his contract of employment and therefore he can't be forced to do it without consultation and his egreement (but I'm not an employment lawyer!)

Original poster

CountessDracula · 30/08/2005 10:38

I just think they might have asked him rather than presenting it as a fait accompli. It's not the money, he doesn't want money just a chill life!

OP posts:

zippitippitoes · 30/08/2005 10:41

I'm no lawyer but from personal experience i would say that it was a material change in his job description and should be paid accordingly.

Is he on differential pay from less senior assistants and does he have a different title from them?

Freckle · 30/08/2005 10:56

What does his contract say? If it provides for such a situation, he may be snookered. However, if he has worked for them for, e.g. 10 years, and has never been asked to do this (even if his contract provides for it), it would still probably be considered a material change to his terms and conditions and he could challenge it.

If his contract does not provide for such a situation, then he has the right to refuse. That said, it depends on how things operate at work and whether he wishes to advance/get a decent payrise, etc. As with a lot of things, it often doesn't matter what a person's rights are; it's what happens on the ground that counts.

What sort of law does he practise?

Freckle · 30/08/2005 10:57

There's nothing to stop him saying OK to the change, in return for a payrise and an on-call allowance.

Original poster

CountessDracula · 30/08/2005 11:01

yes true but money is not his motivation in this.

The thing is they have given him no option! It's SO rude.

He is a litigator

OP posts:

edam · 30/08/2005 11:04

Sh!tbags. Lawyers make the very worst employers IMO (and those of every lawyer I've ever met). Must be a change to his working conditions, as Zippi says, surely?

I know a good employment lawyer... but surely he does too?

Carlk · 30/08/2005 11:10

It depends on his employer really
lets just say he sticks his foot down and says no way jose! or fine so long as you pay me. they have a major disagreement and they then say 3 months later, sorry your work isnt up to scratch you'll have to go .
All of the above legal answers are correct and it does depend on his contract (written or implied by practice)
But if an employer wants you gone they can usually find a way.

It's best that a dialogue is started where he expresses his concerns while emphasising his commitment to the practice. That way he can get a feel for the way things are going.
What if the partners feel the only way the practice can survive is to implement the changes?
Best thing is to start the dialogue and if there is no room for compromise keep smiling and working hard whilst actively seeking another position.
No bad feeling & good references make life much easier.
Just my 2pee

cod · 30/08/2005 11:11

Message withdrawn

Anchovy · 31/08/2005 11:59

I've been thinking about this and FWIW here are my thoughts (I am a partner in a law firm BTW). Firstly I'm not an employment lawyer but I suspect his contract of employment says something about working hours and then something like "from time to time you may be expected/required to work outside of those hours".

I think your husband is actually in quite a strong position, because he has jettisoned partnership expectations: that is the great leverage that partners have over lawyers. Once you decide that it doesn't matter, that leverage evaporates and the partner/lawyer relationship shifts to a different footing and the balance of power shifts back to the lawyer. As a partner you are the bottom line - client wants something crappy and unreasonable and you have to try and either change their mind or work out a way of making it happen, hopefully without too much pain for all concerned. But the bottom line is you always end up doing it yourself if all the other arrangements fall through.

As a partner what you want is a stable and reliable workforce - if I had reliable senior lawyers working for me doing excellent work on a long term basis who had made it clear that they did not have partnership aspirations but were still interested and involved in their work, just didn't want to do it 24/7 I would be delighted - probably even ecstatic. If I were your husband, I would work out what I wanted and what I was prepared to do in relation to this proposition, and go and tell the partners involved in a constructive but definitive way. They then know where they stand. They may be pissed off, but I would be very surprised if there are any repurcussions assuming everything else is ok.

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:11

Anchovy, that is very interesting. His view is that as soon as he lets on that he is not interested in partnership (he has been playing the game, going on the courses etc) that they will decide that they no longer have a hold over him (ie carrot dangling) and that they will bin him. I tend to think more along your lines, but he is not prepared to tell them this unless he has a firm offer of employment from somewhere else.

I'm sure if they offered him partnership he would take it, but he is not really motivated by money (we both earn around the same amount so he doesn't need to be on £250k!) and he is more interested in having a decent work/life balance. He enjoys the work but not the political bullshit. Also he is not really in the right place at the right time (they have just sacked their major client and binned a few staff so they are top -heavy as it is). I know his boss views him as a very safe pair of hands but she is a bit of a nutter and may throw her toys out of her pram if he says he doesn't want her golden egg (or handcuffs as i see it )

OP posts:

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:13

oh and yes I think his contract says that he must work to meet the needs of the dept, but to me that means if the client says "oh I want to shag one of your senior assistants up the arse" then he has to bend over....so not very reasonable and too unspecific.

OP posts:

zippitippitoes · 31/08/2005 12:14

I think Anchovy is right.

And also when they had their Partnership Meeting then unless they are completely esoteric characters they must have discussed whether he would comply without remuneration or incitement.

So they surely won't be surprised if he questions it.

zippitippitoes · 31/08/2005 12:15

x posted with you CD

Jackstini · 31/08/2005 12:17

CD - lol at the shaggin up the arse comment!!
I don't really have any advice except for him to contact one of the specialists in employment law who will do first meeting free, look at his contract and give him some sound advice. (see Yellow Pages) Good luck

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:19

It happened while his boss was on holiday - one of the other partners in the dept asked for his mobile no as they were going to give it to the client without even asking!

He talked to his boss yesterday (she got back from holiday) and she backtracked quickly and asked him if he would do it, he said he would consider and get back to them.

OP posts:

princesspeahead · 31/08/2005 12:24

CD I think he should tell them straight out that he does not agree to be on 24 hr call 1 week in 4, that it is NOT a change which is covered by his employment contract requiring reasonable additional work (it may well have been if it was a one- off, or for a 3 mth period, but not if it is a permanent change), and add that he understands that the partners have agreed to do it but he is not a partner and gets no additional financial or other benefit from taking it on. They are lawyers - they will know he is right.

They may apply a bit of pressure but tbh if he doesn't want partnership anchovy is completely right - they have lost their leverage.

Mind you they may offer him partnership - in which case he SHOULD take it, it puts him in a better position to get a good job at partnership level/higher salary later.

GeorgieVickyLou · 31/08/2005 12:24

Just a thought, but my SIL is on Call and this also includes bank holidays - such as Easter and Christmas... something to check out maybe..

princesspeahead · 31/08/2005 12:26

Alternatively he could use it as a bargaining point if there is something else he wants. And he doesn't have to accept the 1 week in 4 thing either.
Maybe he could do it 1 week in 8 or 1 week in 6 in return for an extra week or so's holiday a year or something. If that is something that he feels would improve his quality of life.

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:27

oh yes pph he would, for that very reason. They are building up the dept again and he is doing v well so you never know - he was put forward last year but due to the client nightmare it wasn't the right time.

OP posts:

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:27

good point GVL

OP posts:

Twiglett · 31/08/2005 12:27

I'd demand a meeting and say No personally

am furious on his behalf, how rude

Original poster

CountessDracula · 31/08/2005 12:28

I suggested that to him, to say he would do one week in 6 or 8. That is a brilliant idea re the holiday I will suggest to him, is a good trade off. (tbh i don't think they get many out of hours calls anyway)

OP posts:

Flip

1 2