Hybrid - told to go from 3 to 4 days in office

[Kenwouldmixitup]

Just like that. No consultation. Job description clearly states hybrid working, and the condition I accepted the role.

4 days in the office doesn’t strike me as hybrid working now. I’m doing exactly the same task in the office as I would be at home.

No issues raised in one-to-one 48 hours ago or warning. Seems to be a whim without substance. Is hybrid supposed to be this flexible?

Sorry, but it's whatever your employer says. Hybrid working has no meaning in law - there is no definition. What does your contract / policy say, and how long have you worked there?

What's in the contract? I made them put 2 WFH days into my contract.

4 days in and one out is hybrid.

Thanks for the responses. I was just indignant at the way it had pounced on me. It is what it is, eyeing up vacancies now.

@Quveas
''Sorry, but it's whatever your employer says''

No. It is what was agreed in the initial contract by both parties.

If the contract states hybrid working and goes into details as to what is meant by that (for example a contract could say that the employee will spend two days a week in the office and work the rest remotely) then they cannot simply change the conditions without consulting the employee.

In my previous job I had a part-time contract where it was written that I would work one day in the office and two from home. The CEO after a year tried to get staff to spend more time in the office. I reminded her of the wording of my contract and stated that I would continue with my usual, agreed work pattern.

I also had that with another employer where I was doing a role working 2 days a week in the office and one from home. When I handed out my notice they tried to make me work my last month 3 days a week in the office at short notice. After a call to ACAS I told the employer that I would continue working my usual, agreed work pattern during my notice. Again an employer cannot just change a long-standing work pattern without consulting you first.

No it isn't what it says in the contract - although I did ask that question. It is what you can enforce. Anyone can be dismissed for alomost any reason for up to two years. And that is all the "contracts" is worth. "Consultation" is meaningless of you can't change it - Employer: "I'm consulting you about working in the office from now on" Employee: "I don't agree" Employer:"Tough..." End of consultation.

There is, as I said, no legal definition of hybrid working. And there is almost no employment protection until 2 years (and not all that much after that either).

But even with all that business needs can change, and the boot is always on the employers foot. You fight from a position of strength, and contracts rarely give you that strength. Some employers may easily roll over. You can't depend on that.

To me it wouldn't matter what the legal standing point was on this. I would get a new job and tell my current employer they had rescinded the offer that made them desirable to work for. But I'm not about sticking around if it no longer suits me to.

I would agree entirely. Just because the law isn't (possibly) on your side doesn't mean much unless you are stuck there.

I would leave because of this too but my industry is still struggling with recruitment so employees have a little bit more power to be choosy atm.

I know quite a few people who have moved because of the promise of hybrid/remote working and they will leave again if they are forced into new terms. Unless there is a flood of skilled workers coming in who weaken our position I think employers are going to struggle to retain their workforce if they go back on hybrid working. It's going to be an interesting power struggle over the next few years.

@Quveas ''No it isn't what it says in the contract - although I did ask that question. It is what you can enforce. Anyone can be dismissed for alomost any reason for up to two years. And that is all the "contracts" is worth. "Consultation" is meaningless of you can't change it - Employer: "I'm consulting you about working in the office from now on" Employee: "I don't agree" Employer:"Tough..." End of consultation.There is, as I said, no legal definition of hybrid working. And there is almost no employment protection until 2 years (and not all that much after that either).But even with all that business needs can change, and the boot is always on the employers foot. You fight from a position of strength, and contracts rarely give you that strength. Some employers may easily roll over. You can't depend on that.''

Again no.

Of course what it says on an employment contract matter...with your logic are you suggesting someone could have been hired to work as a manager for 40 hours at a salary of £50,000 but if the employer suddenly decided six months later that what their business needs are for a receptionist working for 20 hours on minimum wage then they are perfectly entitled to just move the manager to these new conditions because their contract means nothing? of course not.

My contract had no mention of ''hybrid'' working either so it is irrelevant whether there is a legal definition of it or not.

It stated in writing how many hours I would work, where I would be working, the days I would work them and the pattern (two days in the office and one at home) of my work. This is how the job was advertised, the conditions we both agreed on at the interview and during the final hiring process.

So no, I wasn't going a year later to change my work pattern. This was back by advice from ACAS.

Also an employer who took someone on for example who has a disability, health condition or caring responsibility and agreed on a specific work pattern and remote working cannot simply change it because then the employee could claim that they are being discriminated against and that the employer is removing the reasonable adjustments that had been put in place.

Anyway, as other have said if the OP's employer is being unreasonable it is best to find a new role.

Most decent employers understand that if they attract good employees by actively promoting the fact that they offer flexible/homeworking at the interview stage they should maintain these benefits or people will just move on to another employer.

Of course what it says on an employment contract matter...with your logic are you suggesting someone could have been hired to work as a manager for 40 hours at a salary of £50,000 but if the employer suddenly decided six months later that what their business needs are for a receptionist working for 20 hours on minimum wage then they are perfectly entitled to just move the manager to these new conditions because their contract means nothing? of course not.

I really can't be arsed with doing a detailed response, but you are being ridiculous on two grounds. (a) there is no legal defintion of hybrid working so if the employer says four days in and 1 day wfh, that is hybrid working. (b) your example is stupid because actually yes they can do exactly that after only 6 months because, as I have said twice now, with less than 6 months service they can dismiss for almost any reason or none at all, so your hypothetical manager can quit, be dismissed or suck it up. What they can't do is enforce the contract.

You are throwing one hypothetical after another into the mix - my answer is not hypothetical but based on the actual facts in evidence (although I would like some more facts but the OP doesn't seem to be coming back to give them). And what a "decent employer" understands and what this specific employer understands may be miles apart. So that's another hypothetical.

4 days in the office IS hybrid working (whatever the OP thinks of it) and in the absence of any facts to the contrary the employer is abiding by the job description the OP was given. Their options are to try to negotiate something different / staying as they are, suck it up or find another job.

Whatever the (very dangerous) advice you had from ACAS if you had only one years service your employer could have simply truned around and said it is this or you are dismissed, and based on nothing more than what you have said they could have done exactly that. The fact they chose not to do that was fortunate, not law.

Interesting
Have heard of quite a few people being called in to the office

Hi I’m back and finding the discussion really interesting. I have resigned. If the conditions are changed without advance warning and on a whim. There are other ideas in the pipeline which I suspect will be implemented in the same way. It’s not the job that best suits my plans. And management clearly don’t value the experience they have in their team.

@Quveas ''I really can't be arsed with doing a detailed response, but you are being ridiculous on two grounds. (a) there is no legal defintion of hybrid working so if the employer says four days in and 1 day wfh, that is hybrid working. (b) your example is stupid because actually yes they can do exactly that after only 6 months because, as I have said twice now, with less than 6 months service they can dismiss for almost any reason or none at all, so your hypothetical manager can quit, be dismissed or suck it up. What they can't do is enforce the contract.
You are throwing one hypothetical after another into the mix - my answer is not hypothetical but based on the actual facts in evidence (although I would like some more facts but the OP doesn't seem to be coming back to give them). And what a "decent employer" understands and what this specific employer understands may be miles apart. So that's another hypothetical.4 days in the office IS hybrid working (whatever the OP thinks of it) and in the absence of any facts to the contrary the employer is abiding by the job description the OP was given. Their options are to try to negotiate something different / staying as they are, suck it up or find another job.Whatever the (very dangerous) advice you had from ACAS if you had only one years service your employer could have simply truned around and said it is this or you are dismissed, and based on nothing more than what you have said they could have done exactly that. The fact they chose not to do that was fortunate, not law.''

Let's try again:

-The lack of definition of ''hybrid working'' in general that you keep referring to is irrelevant. Some people, as I did in my last 3 jobs, have clearly written in their contract the agreed details of their work patterns (days, hours, location and how many days at home and in the office). There is nothing ''hypothetical'' about it. I am talking about my contracts and my experience when employers tried to make changes after they recruited me on a specific work pattern.

-ACAS do not give ''dangerous advice''. It is their job to advise people on these matters. And no the employer cannot ''turn around and say you are leaving''. An employment contract is a legally binding agreement. If an employer were to change an employee’s work pattern without consultation and demonstrating a real business need, they would be breaching the terms of the contract of employment. When this happens, the employee could potentially have the right to pursue a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.

-As mentioned there are also issues such as whether the remote working was agreed in the first place as a reasonable adjustment if someone has a disability/health condition. Even if someone has only a year of service, they can bring a claim for discrimination or breach of contract from day one. Also an employee who is refused a flexible working request made for childcare reasons may have an indirect sex discrimination claim, on the basis that a requirement to work in the office has a disproportionate impact on female employees, who are more likely to have caring responsibilities. Again a sex discrimination claim can be brought from the first day of employment.

So don't lecture people on ''the law'' when it is obvious you have no idea of what you are talking about. ''can't be arsed'' indeed...

Good for you OP.

Did you give your reasons, and what was the response?

You’re totally missing the point, the previous poster has said in every reply “if under 2 year service”. You’re ignoring that.

your contract might state 2 days a week at home, but if you’re under 2 years your employer can totally legally just tell you it’s now different and your choice is take it or leave it (if your employer is prepared to let you go over it).

you seem to talk like your contract gives you any protection in the first 2 years £ it doesn’t.

I don't blame you, Op. That would be my thinking too.

It amazes me that employers are surprised when people don't to suck up some of the ridiculous stuff they dish out.

''@BeavisMcTavish
You’re totally missing the point, the previous poster has said in every reply “if under 2 year service”. You’re ignoring that.

your contract might state 2 days a week at home, but if you’re under 2 years your employer can totally legally just tell you it’s now different and your choice is take it or leave it (if your employer is prepared to let you go over it).

you seem to talk like your contract gives you any protection in the first 2 years £ it doesn’t.''

For goodness sake, there really is a staggering level of ignorance on this thread.

Employment contracts are legally binding documents for goodness sake. And. no employers cannot just do whatever they want and ignore the wording of employment contracts or employment laws because someone has been working for them for less than two years.

Again, missing the point. Ignore the contract - no.

terminate the contract for no other reason as ‘they want to if you don’t agree to the change’ - yes!

@Artygirlghost

You really are the one not understanding this, even though it has patiently been explained to you several times. The employment contract is only binding until such point as either party gives notice. And yes this can occur at any point for any reason within the first two years.

So to use your example, no of course an employer cannot suddenly say to the £50k manager that you need to start working on reception for £20k. But what they can say, is we no longer need you to work as manager and are giving you notice to terminate that arrangement. However we do have this role available on reception for £20k which is yours if you want it. Do you not see that this is what previous posters have tried to explain?

*within the first two years that is.

Kenwouldmixitup · The conditions haven't changed its still hybrid wording- hybrid working is just such an umbrella term. If something is so important to you that you'd resign over it you need to make sure its specifically agreed & documented. I'm in an industry/company where there is a big move to get people back in the office - applicants are wise to this and are negotiating specific conditions in their contracts

@Aprilx
''You really are the one not understanding this, even though it has patiently been explained to you several times. The employment contract is only binding until such point as either party gives notice. And yes this can occur at any point for any reason within the first two years.''

You really need to stop posting this nonsense about contracts of employment.

A contract of employment is a binding legal document and begins when the employee starts work and until they leave the company. The terms of contract are still binding in the notice period.

An employer can face legal action for breach of contract within the first two years of employment.

An employer can face legal action with the first two years of employment if the employee can show that they are being let go based on discriminatory behaviour (they have a disability, the reason was based on age/gender/race).

You can keep repeating the same ludicrous statements over and over, it is not going to turn your flights of fancy into facts.

www.acas.org.uk/what-an-employment-contract-is

If 3 days wfh was agreed at job offer I too would be put out by this!