Is an email binding?

[thenarnianna]

If, say, your boss offers you a change of hours and you agree and write a formal email confirming your agreement, is this officially binding?

I did the above and have since found out that what I was agreeing to wasn't what I thought and so I asked to stick to my previous hours, but my boss says no, not possible, because I put it in writing that I wanted the new hours and they have advertised for someone to do the other half of my 'new' hours.

My only thought is that I haven't signed a contract or anything actually official.

Anyone know?

But what did you want to discuss? At that point, you didnt know the other staff member was leaving so what were your conditions?

Or did you actually go and say, “Yes, I want to drop my hours on the condition that this other staff member remains employed but if she leaves then i don’t want to drop hours.”

They asked. You said yes. Other employees have nothing to do with it. Apply for the 3 day a week job. They wanted to change your hours to make it easier to fill the post as it’s hard to get someone for 2.5 days so it was easier for them to drop yours and thats what you wanted. You cant change your mind.

I think that "I would like....but..." is not a binding acceptance. It is a conditional acceptance with unsatisfied conditions. At most, an expression of interest/desire to negotiate.

But...you could try posting on Legal Matters for a more formal view.

In my naivety, I thought I was expressing an interest in the new hours, not contractually confirming it ... So the unclear bit was whether or not I would be receiving a certain part of the job as an added paid extra (as I currently do) or whether it would be included in the two days only.

That is my thought.

I went to speak to my boss after I sent the email, asked to speak about the conditions, and she said she wouldn't have time to speak to me until the week after. So I emailed her again that night, saying I would like a certain condition (basically something as a paid extra that I currently have) if I were to reduce my hours.

Right, so you emailed again actually stating the condition, and it was accepted. Why arent you giving this information all in one go?

You emailed and said you had conditions to discuss, which could have been a get out, but then you emailed again and actually stated the condition, which they accepted. It’s done. There is no ambiguity there.

My post would have been essay length if I included everything. I just wanted to know if my original email was binding like a contract.

What do you mean, they accepted? My boss said no to the condition.

If she said no to it then why did you go ahead and agree? You said you agreed to the change in hours, and only changed your mind after finding out that the other employee is leaving.
So, she said no but you still agreed? Did that happen in writing? Because you’re drip feeding and you need to put all the information in.

Or did you not agree at all after she said no, because then obviously it’s not binding as you said no. What actually happened?

Could you apply for the three days?

Boss verbally: would you like to drop your hours
Me verbally: yes please
Boss verbally: write it in an email
Me in email: yes would like drop in hours but need to talk to about ... and....
Me verbally: can we talk about ... and ...
Boss verbally: next week
Me verbally: erm ok
Me email: if I were to drop hours, I need to know if ....is the case because otherwise I can't afford it etc
Boss email: no not the case
Me verbally: that's an issue, I'd rather stick to my original hours
Boss verbally: no you can't, I have it in writing that you want to drop your hours so that's what's happening.

Right, that's a summary of everything that's happened. If that doesn't make sense, I give up lol. I didn't accept it after she said the conditions weren't available.

In general, a contract does not need to be physically signed to be legally binding; an email acceptance can suffice. However, it's important to ensure the email exchange meets the basic principles of contract law, including offer, acceptance, and intention to create a legal relationship.

On that basis I’d say no, not binding.

There's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about whether it's legally binding or not. That's pretty irrelevant. What a bunch of anonymous posters think about it being binding is of no importance. The only relevant matter is what the OP intends to do about it. The employer has said that they will not change the hours back. "I consulted a bunch of random people on MumsNet and they decided my email wasn't legally binding" isn't going to force them to rethink!

The OP doesn't really have a whole load of options here. She'd have to start the whole grievance process including appeals. Then if she doesn't win - what? A potentially messy claim for brteach of contract? Resign and claim constrcutive unfair dismissal? The odds on either of those claims winning are not great. And if they won't change their minds about the hours now - when they could - then a grievance isn't likely to do anything.

I do have one other observation, which isn't likely to go down well. The OP says that the main reason she wanted to drop to two days was because of her job share partner being difficult. I am not sure how dropping a half day would resolve that issue since she would have still been job-sharing with the same person, but the employers perspective may not necessarily be that it was the job share partner being difficult. As several people have observed, in theory at least, there is no reason that the employer couldn't go back to the original terms - they haven't finished recruiting. So perhaps the employer thinks recruiting to 3 day instead of 2.5 is easier; but equally perhaps they have other motivations. Whenever people don't get on, there are two sides to the story. And I did notice a throw away comment that the OP got paid extra for keeping certain aspects of the role to herself, and wanted to continue that - which isn't really a "job share". That could be the foundation for a lot of annoyance.

I think that you did express a pretty clear desire to reduce your hours, so they acted upon that immediately rather than coming back to double check with you first. No it wasn’t perfect line management, but in a world of human beings it was understandable. If it is teaching then they were working to a timescale to get a job advert out, as everything needs to happen by the resignation deadline of 31st May. Unless you really want to annoy your manager then you probably need to just go with the two days and make the best of it.

Offer to do any cover that’s needed elsewhere to make up the extra cash? Or do something on the side?

Part-time roles can be quite hard to find (which is why so many candidates are looking around) so think seriously if you want to stick your neck out over this issue.

My only option is the union really.

A main reason to drop the hours WAS because of my job sharing partner, as we just didn't gel and she often didn't do her duties and left them to me to sort last minute, things like that, but also because I didn't like coming in for half of a day ( lots of anxiety for only half a day's pay) and it also made some aspects of the job difficult, hard to explain.

The job share teacher also got the 'extra' I'm talking about.

I mean, I felt like I'd made clear there were conditions I wanted to discuss about the new hours before it officially went ahead, but looking back I should have been even more clear.

It's just rubbish that they don't value me enough to work through it with me, I've worked there 6 years! At this point, I'm more upset at how they've dealt with it all than the drop in hours.

I thought it was teaching!
I do sympathise because working with a non-compatible job share partner in teaching is probably harder than in many other jobs. Especially if all your colleagues think they are wonderful. I once had one notoriously difficult jobshare partner who didn’t like the way that I did anything, didn’t really want to plan for her own lessons (but didn’t like my planning either) and wanted to re-organise the classroom furniture on the one day per week that she was teaching in there! 😂

But my other point still stands, really take heed of the number of teachers sniffing around this part-time post as you don’t want to be in their shoes in a couple of years’ time.

OK, but it still stands that you don't have many options - you yourself don't like a half day, but you asked for two days (the reason you asked is irrelevant) and yet you assume that it will be easy to get others who do like the half day. I do understand that a half day is rubbish - but if you remained on 2.5 days then that means they have to find someone else to do 2.5 days, which may be more of a struggle. Your most obvious answer woulod be to apply for the 3 days position - but if you don't get it that is going to be very awkward.

To be honest, either way, you asked for two days repeatedly, they offered it, you agreed and I don't think you were ever in a position to say you wanted to apply conditions (especially not after having agreed). If they had been asking a "favour" from you then you could have asked for conditions, but in their view it was the other way around and they were doing you a favour that you'd asked for. In a sense it is a learning point - you discuss terms and conditions before you agree, not after. That is always true.

Hopefully the union may be able to negotiate something, but it's weak ground they have if the employer won't shift. And it probably is a message, as you have already worked out - even if you get what you want, that isn't going to improve the relationship. I don't see why they won't simply make changes now (with other conditions from them if that is what they want), but something is saying that if they won't go back to the negotiating table when nothing is yet set in stone, then the outcome will either be an unhappy one for you, and unhappy one for them - or even possibly not what either of you can be happy with. In any of those options, it may be that the writing is on the wall and it's time to think about other roles.

Honestly I suspect it's because it's easier to recruit a 3 dat week role than 2.5 days. So they want to keep it at 2 because that's an easier job to fill

Could your employer be using this to try to get rid of you? Hoping you'll leave? Because your employer finds you to be difficult?