(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] robert-jones.livejournal.com at 04:00pm on 07/07/2010
I've not been following closely, but I believe that the reason the government lost previously when they tried to change the terms of civil servants redunancy pay, is because the existing provisions are set out in primary legislation (the Superannuation Act 1972).

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I believe that most employment contracts do provide for the terms of employment to be varied from time to time.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 04:05pm on 07/07/2010
I believe that most employment contracts do provide for the terms of employment to be varied from time to time

Yes, but only following mutual agreement, as with all contracts, and not unilaterally. Of course, the employer has the upper hand, as the oft-implied result of rejection tends to be unemployment (even though it cannot actually be).


[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hsenag.livejournal.com at 06:42pm on 07/07/2010
Aren't private employers entitled to make people redundant (on the old terms) for not accepting a new contract?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 06:45pm on 07/07/2010
Yes, and no...
[link] [parent] [reply]

July

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
 2
 
 3
1
 4
 
 5
 
6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31