Flexibility clause in contract

[GrombotPollyDog1]

Hi,

I'm looking for any advice from anyone with experience of flexibility clauses in employment contracts.

A colleague is being forced to take on the work of another full time colleague who has left. We have demanding full time roles however this colleague has been told they must take on the leaver's role IN ADDITION to their current role (no extra pay or support)

They spoke with HR but were basically told that the flexibility clause means they can do what they like.
I don't believe this is correct - flexibility would be say, covering while someone is off sick or whilst a replacement is recruited, or moving to a different area for a time.
This just feels wrong and my colleague is worried sick.

I believe they have been singled out as they have no family or caring responsibilities. The colleague said they would quit if forced to do it but somehow they've been blagged into 'trialling it'.

It just feels so wrong and immoral and comes after a lot of other questionable employment decisions.

The colleague in question is so exhausted thinking, worrying and arguing about it, I feel like they have just resigned themselves to it which feels like bullying.

The company has banked the savings of not replacing one person by giving all that person's work to someone else.

Can an employer do this?

Tell them to go off sick abd gey 'work related stress' as reason in future note and on the last fit note to have 'To provide x with a reasonable and decreased workload' (in the section where it says something like fit to return with adjustments).

They ha e a duty of care for ot harming the employee by overburdened them with too much work.

They can adjust people’s roles - yes.

The most constructive way to get to a sensible solution is to actively engage with the trial. Weekly check ins, bringing to the managers attention the list of things they intend to do (and level of detail if that’s relevant) and crucially what they’re not going to do as a result of prioritising the expanded remit.

be up front on what’s not going to get done. That pushes things back onto the management team to address. It maybe tht they’re expected stuff to stop, or level of detail reduce and accepting of that for the headcount cut.

There is no possible way that anyone can arbitrate a definition of "too much work". So that is meaningless. There is no realistic method of enforcing such a "duty of care" - the employee says they have too much work, the employer says they are not competent and cannot appropriately manage their workload. And any GP who says "'To provide x with a reasonable and decreased workload" cannot enforce it either - the employer can ignore the comments, and a GP is not in a position to decide what is a reasonable workload. So of course the employee could get the GP to sign them off sick - which may reflect in a reference for further employment - but they may end up off sick until the employer begins processes to dismiss them on capability grounds.

OP, I agree that this is unfair, but on technical grounds it is not unlawful and it very much sounds like your colleague has allowed the ship to sail by agreeing to "trialling" it. But in terms of your actual question - there is no clear view on what "flexibility" means - it's one of those "as long as a piece of string" things, so depending on that as a defence against additional duties is a non-starter.

Having already agreed to this, it's difficult to suggest a way forward, but if your colleague is willing to push, then the obvious place to start would be a grievance laying out why the ask is impossible, and the risks to the employer and themselves in pursuing this course. If they were in a union, I would suggest talking to them first, but I suspect they aren't otherwise they'd have gone there already.

I'm sorry to say that if this is at an impasse, the only way forward would be to carry out their threat and resign (preferably getting another job first), but they would need to be clear that it is highly unlikely they could successfully make any claim to a tribunal, so they would be walking out of their job potentially without one to go to. Onloy they can decide if they can afford to do that.

Finally, you asked "can an employer do this?" - the answer is yes. I wish it wasn't. A lot of employees wish it wasn't. But it is.

My colleague managed 3 days of the trial before realising that it is an insane amount of work and completely unreasonable. They have requested meetings with management to go through the demands of each role and explain why it's infeasible but the meetings have been declined.
How long do you cooperate for?

This colleague and I do the same job but I have one 'unit' to look after - I easily work 48+ hours per week. My colleague is now expected to picked up 2 'units' which will be c.100 hours week (allowing for having to get to grips with the new role, the management expectations etc).

This person is seriously sinking and is really distressed.

Thanks for the input. I'm genuinely shocked that an employer can reasonably double someone's workload and get away with it!

What is most infuriating is that a recent internal survey highlighted that people in this particular role were experiencing stress and hardship, resulting in the usual management hand-wringing bullshit. Yet they have done this to a person that I would consider to be the most vulnerable of all of us.

I just hate it and feel so powerless.

This person is seriously sinking and is really distressed.

Honestly tell your colleague to prioritise her health as her employers certainly aren't. Go off sick and look for another job.
I spent a year covering the work of 3 people due to a vacancy and long term sickness absence and it ruined my health. I was forced to leave a job I loved as I just couldn't do it any more. Life is too short for that and, although I miss my old job, I'm happy in a new place now

If the meetings are being declined, then your colleague still needs to communicate the issues.

They do what they’ve been asked, which is to cover the two units within the capacity available in a single full time role. Realistically that will mean doing less stuff on both of them and / or doing it in less detail.

Generic discussions about why it’s not feasible are unlikely to get anywhere.

Providing a clear list of what they are and aren’t planning on doing each week ensures that they are communicating with management and positively engaging with the trial.

Engaging with the trial does not mean find a way to do everything that was done before. It means attempting to see what can be done in a reasonable amount of time. Depending on the type of role that might be to alternate days worked on stuff relating to each unit. To order the work list by size of value for each unit and only do the top third of each. Or work each one for a week and take an ‘out of office’ approach for the other. Stopping some internal reporting activities or reducing frequency etc.