New ownership during mat leave

[Lunamoon23]

Hello,

I'm currently on maternity leave and don't return until next year... i am management of a cafe, I received a phone call this afternoon from my boss who informed me they have just accepted a offer on the business (I knew it was up for sale, had been for 4 years), typically it had to happen now of all times... but that is what it is.

The people who've put the offer in have expressed they have no desire to change the operational hours of the business or how it works.
They also know I'm on my maternity leave and until when and that I'll be returning part time when I do.

It was agreed upon with the current owners/my current boss what my working days/hours would be upon return aswell as my yearly salary (reduced to reflect hours but still pretty generous). I've been with the company for 15 years.

My current boss explained to me that they've explained my knowledge and experience to the buyers, who were also regular customers and knew who I am (from serving them) and they seemed egar to know I was returning.

My question is; can the new owners change this scenario? (Hours/days/salary).

I'm feeling instantly anxious about it, because we've (myself and my husband) have worked all our plans around this.
Regarding the childminder we've found and financially too.
I also really don't want to have to leave (because I love where I work and who I work with, and know it like the back of my hand).

I'm also concerned about how it'd work, because the current owner also works within the business, back of house. So whenever I wouldn't have been in when back from Mat leave, they would be to over see things. However the new owners both have other busy jobs and only one of them plans to work 1 day within the business. Therefore changing the whole operations of the business. Which I guess, isn't really my issue, but it worries me again..

Thank you for any advice in advance.
I Will try to responds to any questions/advice as soon as possible but also caring for a newborn. ❤️

No, it is not an overstatement.

An employee's contract may allow a business to make some changes without the employee's consent, but there is a limit as to how far this can go. Most significant changes require consent.

You can only make someone redundant if there is a reduced requirement for the kind of work they do. Wanting an employee to work more hours or different hours, for example, is not a redundancy situation.

Fire and rehire is a risky process for the employer. Tribunals are likely to decide that the dismissals were unfair unless the business is in severe financial distress, there have been exhaustive attempts to agree changes to the employment contract and there was genuinely no other option. The business must also follow a fair dismissal process, allow employees to appeal their dismissal and provide the correct notice. Many employees won't take action in a fire and rehire situation, and it isn't a guaranteed win for them if they do, but it is nonetheless the case that many employers who go down this route would lose if employees took them to tribunal.

@prh47bridge I will leave it with the statement that we massively disagree, and the version of employment law that you describe is not one that I recognise. In particular "You can only make someone redundant if there is a reduced requirement for the kind of work they do" is an interesting interpretation that few people who have been made redunadnt would recognise. It is roles, not people or tasks that are made redundant. But the OP can't really second guess anything as nothing has happened yet.

It is not an interesting interpretation. It is the law.

Employment Rights Act 1996 section 139 clearly sets out the conditions in which redundancy applies. You are only redundant if the employer is shutting down your place of work or there is, or is expected to be, a reduced requirement for employees to carry out your kind of work in that location.

Yes, it is roles that are made redundant. Nothing I said contradicts that in any way. However, you suggested that OP could be made redundant if her role no longer suits the business needs. That is not necessarily the case. If they don't need anyone doing her role then yes, she could be made redundant. However, if they just want to change her terms, that is not a redundancy situation.

Employers often use the term redundancy in situations where it does not apply and occasionally try to argue the case in court. They always fail. For example, there have been a number of cases where employers have tried to argue that they can make part time staff redundant as they now need someone to fulfil the role full time. In every case, the employer has lost. The courts have been clear that this is not a redundancy situation.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

I am not going to get into a protracted debate. The OP can take their advice where they want and decide what their risks and realities are for themselves.

I did read the whole thread, by the way.

You clearly don't believe me. You can check the Employment Rights Act at legislation.gov.uk. I can quote cases if you like. The law is clear, and it isn't what you seem to think it is.

OK you have it your way "You are only redundant if the employer is shutting down your place of work or there is, or is expected to be, a reduced requirement for employees to carry out your kind of work in that location."

All these lawyers disagree with you:
https://lawhive.co.uk/knowledge-hub/employment-law/reasons-for-redundancy/
https://www.cavershamsolicitors.co.uk/what-are-fair-reasons-redundancy/
https://www.davidsonmorris.com/reasons-for-redundancy/
https://landaulaw.co.uk/redundancy/
https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/resource-hub/redundancy/redundancy-guide/

According to your strict definition all these lawyers, some of the best in the country, are wrong. And therefore lose cases regularly.

Restructuring, allocating work amongst other employees, the need to reduce costs and so on are all fair reasons for redundancy. Case law substantially builds on the bare bones of legislation. Until such time as there is a context for the OP - and since nothing has yet happened that is not the case - then nobody can assert what can or cannot happen.

Contrary to what you say, they do agree with me.

Lawhive - "Redundancy happens when an employer doesn’t need certain employees to do their job anymore"

Caversham - "Redundancy can only be considered an option if the employee’s job is no longer needed"

Davidson Morris - "Employees should only be made redundant if there is no need for their job to continue to exist"

Landau Law = "Redundancy occurs where your dismissal is:

• wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that your employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purposes of which you were employed, or in the place where you were employed; or
• the fact that the requirements of your employer for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where you were employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish."

Note that this is almost exactly the words I used.

Peninsula Group - "Below are common examples of genuine redundancy situations:

• An employee's work is no longer required due to the business taking a downturn.
• An employee's job no longer exists, with the work being carried out by other employees.
• The business has become insolvent or has ceased trading.
• The business or a particular process has been moved to another location.
• The business is transferred to a new owner."

(That last point is a bit of a stretch in my view, but the rest of it agrees with me)

And of course they agree with me. The law defines redundancy in Section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is what Landau Law and I have paraphrased. That is the definition the courts have repeatedly upheld. There is no getting round that.

Restructuring, allocating work amongst other employees, the need to reduce costs and so on are all fair reasons for redundancy

Indeed they can be, but only if there is a reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. As I say, employers often claim they are making employees redundant when the situation does not meet the legal definition of redundancy. Of course, if they offer enough compensation, this won't be a problem for them.

Actually, this isn’t quite correct. Case law suggests that an employer cannot use cost grounds alone as a reason for redundancy. They still have to meet the S139 definition that @prh47bridge mentioned above.

Plus, if they were envisaging redundancies then that would be a “measure” that should have been consulted on before the transfer took place. So there’s also a technical failure to inform and consult claim there if they did make OPs role redundant.

And they can’t change her terms and conditions if that’s solely due to the transfer - they’re automatically null and void by TUPE. They are only permitted to make changes for an ETO reason that entails changes in the workforce. However what they can do is give her a role that’s no less favourable if it’s not practicable for her to return to her old job, as they’d be entitled to do that on her return from mat leave regardless of any transfer.

And I agree that requiring the OP to increase her hours would not be a redundancy situation as it’s an increased need for employees to do work of a particular kind, not a reduced one.

This is why so many employers fall foul of redundancy law - it’s much stricter than people think.

Just wanted to come back and thank you all for your advice and insights into this. I had a meeting with the new owners today (although they haven’t officially taken over as of yet), but feel very reassured by the meeting, they seem lovely and it appears they have no desire to change the way the business operates, which is reassuring, they’re fine with my contract and with my return to work date/hours. So I can now resume enjoying my maternity leave in blissful ignorance for a while longer xxx