Can they make me sign new contract?

[lasttimer]

Have worked for the same company 12y. Mon-Fr 9-2:45 without any break. There are few of us working this pattern, it’s called ‘Mummy’s shift’, as only people having children were allowed to have it. Rest of the warehouse works 8-4, 7-3. There is a talk of a company takeover and we, mums, are pressurised to change our shifts to 4 on 4 offs- 8 to 3. Do I have rights to refuse and stay in my shifts? I am a single mother, DCs are 9 and 6, I have no one to drop them at school (breakfast club starts at 8) or pick up (this would be easier to arrange than the morning).
I am at a loss if I have any rights to refuse.

No, they cannot unilaterally amend a contract.

Hold your ground.

@jetlag92 They can ultimately offer new jobs and of course employment contracts change! How do you think companies ever merge? Or course change takes place but it’s by negotiation. These contracts are on dodgy ground anyway as they seem to exclude protected employees. That might well be concerning to a new owner.

@DrCoconut It’s not a protected characteristic in law and it can change. Employment is fundamentally about law, not what you would like it to be. The op could request a part time job within a new working hours arrangement.

The current legal position is that being primary carer for a child = being a woman.

The Equality Act does not include motherhood on the list of protected characteristics, but the courts have 'read it into' the Law.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all lower courts must also do so, so with respect, it's unlikely to change - it's established as good law.

Workingfamilies .org.uk says being a parent or a carer is not a protected characteristic. I cannot find any advice on employment law that says it is. Careers and parents are not always women! It only matters if they are treated unfairly. If rules favour women and someone disabled cannot get the “mum” contract, it’s reasonable to argue, that a disabled non parent is treated unfairly. Each case is different and parents and carers can all ask to work part time without jobs being put aside for them and excluding other protected people.

I'm surprised to have to explain this to an adult, but well here we are.

All sources of information are not created equal. It is necessary to think critically about the source of your information, when evaluating its weight - not just blindly accept everything you read on the internet as fact.

Workingfamilies.org is a pressure group - it has a political agenda to effect change to legislation to promote the interests of working families, and the things it publishes on its website do not have the force of law. So, it is likely to present information in a manner that advances this agenda. It has a vested interest in highlighting that parenthood is not a protected characteristic in the Equality Act - because it would like it to be so and indeed campaigns for this change to EqA. It has no incentive to then go on to set out that actual legal position, which is that the courts have read into the act that discrimination against people with childcare responsibilities amounts to discrimination on the grounds of sex, even though it is not defined as a protected characteristic.

On the other hand, judgments handed down by The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE in the Employment Appeal Tribunal very much are binding.

As I have said several times now, the law of England and Wales isn't just made up of statutes. The common law also derives from case law, i.e. what courts have decided in the past (the doctrine of stare decisis).

So, when the courts have consistently found that the care responsibilities for small children disproportionally impact women,it becomes part of the law - Judge made law is definitely a thing. So, discriminating against employees with such responsibilities also becomes unlawful. They even coined a term for it - the Childcare Disparity.

I did provide a link above with a helpful analyis of the evolution of this point of law, the option to actually read it remains available to you.

Edited to add - if a disabled person needs changes to their contract as a reasonable adjustment, then the employer must fairly consider the request and make the adjustments if it can. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Their web site offers guidance based on the law. So does ACAS. And don’t be condescending.

By the way, she cannot be a Mrs and a DBE!

Your link was a sex discrimination case and the advice is clearly printed that each case is to be taken on its own merits.

If it was as straight forward as you claim every company would have to offer part time / school friendly hours and they absolutely do not. There is no right to part time, and certainly no right to specific hours.

OP, I’d definitely join a union. But I’d also consider looking for other jobs just in case. Not least because it is very stressful to fight these sorts of things.

@JemimaTiggywinkles Exactly. EATs also apply existing law. Their judgements can be used to advance an argument but they are not binding law. Their decisions can also be appealed to higher courts.

The employer would need to show the change is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, e.g., business need, cost savings, or operational necessity. If they have the backing of an auditor it strengthens their case.

If you don’t like it, find another job OP as the employer may have to jump hoops but with the backing of legal advice they usually can find legitimacy in their aims.

If you are part of a TUPE transfer to the new company then your current terms and conditions are protected. If anything is to be changed then there has to be a consultation process. I suggest you join a union to help you with any future issues. ACAS also offers helpful advice in these situations.

I think this is the correct position.

This is correct but also beware it doesn’t stop the company you are TUPE’d to going through a redundancy process even if current contracts are honoured.

Ive been a manger in this scenario as and soon as staff were transferred a reorganisation initiative was launched to “integrate” the incoming staff.

This resulted in nearly all the roles that had been moved across being let go as the work could be done by existing teams at the HQ of new organisation (in a different location).