Even though they didn’t sign the contract, by continuing to work they are deemed to have accepted it unless they notified their employer in writing that they didn’t agree with it and were working under protest.
Having asked my girlfriend who works in HR her “opinion” is that based on the details provided your firm is on very shaky ground.
Implied acceptance exists but is being moved away from due to the uncertainty of it in the modern world of tribunals and compensation claims. She certainly would not want to defend a tribunal for an illegal deduction of wages based on implied acceptance. For something as serious as deducting money from wages there should be a clear written contract giving consent and the circumstances. Without it it leaves them open to tribunal which even if they win could cost more than what they actually deducted.
She feels that you should have been given the contract and once you refused you should have been issued notice and offered the new contract on your last day and if you refused goodbye, check Sainsburys for the current example of people with 30 years service being told sign here for a pay cut or your out.
Her advice is to get ACAS involved and see what happens. The firm may well back down due to the lack of paperwork. However if they do expect that you, your mate and anyone else who hasn’t signed will be getting one straight after.
If they don’t back down tribunal could still be an option and that will depend on the person hearing it on the day.
How much has been taken? They are limited to how much they can take and should also provide invoices of the costs they have incurred and are recovering.
Type contracts of employment into google and click on GOV one,I can’t get the link to work.
The only time i’ve known it happen,the company had to buy the old contracts off the employees then put then on new ones(it was a pay cut).
kcrussell25:
A company can “ask” you to sign a new contract at anytime and you are free to refuse and that is the end of the matter.A company can “enforce” changes to your terms and conditions but needs to consult with the affected employees to explain the reason for changes and how they are affected. At this point you are still free to refuse however you should be issued with “contractual notice” as your current terms are ending. At the end of the notice period your are viewed as having resigned. If this had been enforced they wouldn’t still be there.
It sounds to me that they have “asked” but not “enforced”. They are now chancing their arm, or the person doing the deduction doesn’t actually know your mate hasn’t signed. They may have been told that its in the contract. At the minute I think this is a straight illegal deduction of wages as there is no “signed contract” allowing it. Speak to ACAS but I expect you will be told to put in a grievance, appeal and then go tribunal.
There doesn’t necessarily need to be a “signed contract” (although courts will be sceptical in the absence of one). The question is simply whether the changes were agreed (or acquiesced to).
Regards “enforced” contract changes, the way that works is that you dismiss the employees (with notice, and the payment of any contractual entitlements) but then re-hire them on a new contract. If the employee has more than 2 years continuous service, that can only be done if the reason for doing so is “fair” - otherwise it amounts to an unfair dismissal. Generally speaking, they’d have to show that the entire company was heading for bankruptcy or something similar - it cannot be justified simply because of a profit grab, or because managers would find it convenient to make the change.
Rob K:
Yorkielad:
If he hasn’t signed anything they cannot just change your terms and conditions as they like,every company in the land would if this was the case.[…]
I read all the threads,I also took the time to read the GOV website on changes to contract of employment before I posted
The .gov page you refer to makes no mention of your original statement. Stop making stuff up. The company can make any changes they want and employees do not have to sign or agree to them. By not doing can result in a number of different outcomes, depending on what the specifics of the changes are and other factors.
[/quote]
My original post say’s he has not signed anything to agree with the new terms.
The GOV website says employeer cannot change contract without employees agreememt how am I making stuff up??
Rjan:
kcrussell25:
A company can “ask” you to sign a new contract at anytime and you are free to refuse and that is the end of the matter.A company can “enforce” changes to your terms and conditions but needs to consult with the affected employees to explain the reason for changes and how they are affected. At this point you are still free to refuse however you should be issued with “contractual notice” as your current terms are ending. At the end of the notice period your are viewed as having resigned. If this had been enforced they wouldn’t still be there.
It sounds to me that they have “asked” but not “enforced”. They are now chancing their arm, or the person doing the deduction doesn’t actually know your mate hasn’t signed. They may have been told that its in the contract. At the minute I think this is a straight illegal deduction of wages as there is no “signed contract” allowing it. Speak to ACAS but I expect you will be told to put in a grievance, appeal and then go tribunal.
There doesn’t necessarily need to be a “signed contract” (although courts will be sceptical in the absence of one). The question is simply whether the changes were agreed (or acquiesced to).
Regards “enforced” contract changes, the way that works is that you dismiss the employees (with notice, and the payment of any contractual entitlements) but then re-hire them on a new contract. If the employee has more than 2 years continuous service, that can only be done if the reason for doing so is “fair” - otherwise it amounts to an unfair dismissal. Generally speaking, they’d have to show that the entire company was heading for bankruptcy or something similar - it cannot be justified simply because of a profit grab, or because managers would find it convenient to make the change.
If you can find a way to make that work go to Sainsbury union tell them how and you will be a very popular man!
I went through it when they brought managers premiums out a few years ago. I probably only lost about a grand. Some lost 3k.
They are reducing premiums and thats why people are losing out. Its “not fair” to have different people earning different because of their start date whilst doing the same job.
If you don’t accept you finish and are classed as having resigned.
What is an unavoidable accident? It must have happened to other drivers if it’s unavoidable. It’s not like a car pulled out or a dog ran across the road
When a new employee starts they should be given a contract (it’s a legal right). They are usually asked to sign and return a copy, but many don’t. Successive tribunals have agreed that accepting the job implies acceptance of the contract.
If an employer wants to change things down the line, and there can be many reasons why they would, they have to give notice (three months?) in writing of the changes. This is where it often goes wrong, because the paperwork is crucial at a tribunal. The wording has to be clear, there has to be some evidence that every affected employee was given it and it should be spelled out clearly what will happen to those who do not accept the new deal - usually dismissal.
eagerbeaver:
They don’t need a union Rob.Just a new job.
That’s what all these hauliers bank on though & why working conditions are so ■■■■■ I think.
They can bring in whatever ■■■■■■■■ they want on the basis that the drivers will either simply jack & easily find alternative employment for similar money elsewhere (and easily replace your bum on the seat), or just moan and carry on thus bringing the ‘assumed acceptance’ thing into play.
So companies want to pay rubbish wages twinned with poor conditions, running drivers ragged to earn a decent wage and then when an accident happens they want the driver to contribute. If it wasn’t true you wouldn’t believe it.
On the road for 45 hours a week clocking up god knows how many miles where the law of averages says you are likely to have an accident.
Nearly as mad as my son inlaw in Afghan living in the field eating crap sachets of food for days on end and then getting charged for it.
World’s gone mad
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Yorkielad:
Rob K:
Yorkielad:
My original post say’s he has not signed anything to agree with the new terms.
The GOV website says employeer cannot change contract without employees agreememt how am I making stuff up??
Yes, but if the employee doesn’t agree then he must make clear his objections in writing to his employer. You can’t just refuse to sign a document, have a moan, walk off and carry on with your job… that’s when assumed acceptance comes in.
No paper trail of your objection - no case.
rob22888:
Yorkielad:
Rob K:
Yorkielad:
My original post say’s he has not signed anything to agree with the new terms.
The GOV website says employeer cannot change contract without employees agreememt how am I making stuff up??Yes, but if the employee doesn’t agree then he must make clear his objections in writing to his employer. You can’t just refuse to sign a document, have a moan, walk off and carry on with your job… that’s when assumed acceptance comes in.
No paper trail of your objection - no case.
20 years ago you would be right, nowdays less certain.
Why hasn’t the employer took the employee through the disciplinary process for failing to return the new contract? It would be a reasonable management request.
That paper trail what if you “submitted it” but the employer “denies” it? I wrote a grievance that I didn’t need to submit in the end but I could get it out and say I gave them this. They then told me ok we will leave it in the office. Didn’t have a rep as only a quick chat. I assumed that was it and closed and they swept under the carpet. Totally made up but muddies the water and if new terms are not signed even more so.
This is why “big firms” have so many hr people and hundreds of pages of policy trying to cover everything.
Deducting wages is a huge step for an employer to take and they need to be watertight. Its not the same as being told that you now might have to work weekends instead of Monday to Friday for example
People knock agencies… But at no point in any of my accidents have I been asked to pay a penny. Nor have they not paid me for the work I did (one firm tried and thanks to advice on here I got my £££). If your firm are robbing your money like this go agency and get treated better.
I’ve caused probably £20k’s worth of damage in my short driving career. And all of it’s been due to my own stupidity and negligence if I’m honest. I didn’t have the skills at the time to do the job. But the companies take that risk on - not me as a driver or my Ltd company. It’s a cost of doing business for them.
I also second the idea of robbing them silly and then leaving them in the lurch. Teach them the true cost of their cheap skate ways.
kcrussell25:
rob22888:
Yorkielad:
Yorkielad:
My original post say’s he has not signed anything to agree with the new terms.
The GOV website says employeer cannot change contract without employees agreememt how am I making stuff up??Yes, but if the employee doesn’t agree then he must make clear his objections in writing to his employer. You can’t just refuse to sign a document, have a moan, walk off and carry on with your job… that’s when assumed acceptance comes in.
No paper trail of your objection - no case.
20 years ago you would be right, nowdays less certain.
Why hasn’t the employer took the employee through the disciplinary process for failing to return the new contract? It would be a reasonable management request.
That paper trail what if you “submitted it” but the employer “denies” it? I wrote a grievance that I didn’t need to submit in the end but I could get it out and say I gave them this. They then told me ok we will leave it in the office. Didn’t have a rep as only a quick chat. I assumed that was it and closed and they swept under the carpet. Totally made up but muddies the water and if new terms are not signed even more so.
This is why “big firms” have so many hr people and hundreds of pages of policy trying to cover everything.
Deducting wages is a huge step for an employer to take and they need to be watertight. Its not the same as being told that you now might have to work weekends instead of Monday to Friday for example
[/quote]
When I was given my current works contract I was given two of them, one for the office to keep and one for my own records both had to be signed and dated.
I do agree there should be a paper trail that both the employer and employee have that shows they both agree to the T’S and C’S. If the driver has only signed their original contract and not the new one agreeing to deductions then the company should have really evidence that any employee who did not sign or agree with the terms were chased up and dealt with, putting them HR bods to work.
Does RobRoy know how many drivers didn’t sign or agree to the new terms? And if the office chased them up about it?
You’ve received a lot of legalise and big words here Robroy, but Harry Monk nailed it succinctly on page one; if they take £50 from your colleague he should just bite his tongue and sell his 400 litre tank full to a caravan type for £50 . Not ifs or buts, they’ve stolen the money from him, he should steal it back from them.
robroy:
At my firm we all signed a Contract of Employment on starting.
About 5 yrs later they brought out a new revised version which included charging drivers for damage.
I, and a couple of others refused to sign it, and made it crystal clear why.
Nothing happened until recently and they are now deducting money from some driver’s wages, one of which who did not sign the new contract, and who sustained damage which was unavoidable,.agreed by a compliance type guy, (after an enquiry )who has now left.
It was trailer damage done by a overhanging thick hidden tree branch, which was backed up by photo evidence of the location of the incident, clearly showing the impact was unavoidable.
In this case what does the law say about this?
Is this legal?
That is because a follish romanian driver say (in my country we pay damages the driver I mean) and you’re company makes the east european tricks. Must report inmidiately to the work inspection and have some inspections to see what’s wrong there
the maoster:
You’ve received a lot of legalise and big words here Robroy, but Harry Monk nailed it succinctly on page one; if they take £50 from your colleague he should just bite his tongue and sell his 400 litre tank full to a caravan type for £50 . Not ifs or buts, they’ve stolen the money from him, he should steal it back from them.
Wise man #2 also speak great sense… 
Clarity is needed on 1) what the exact wording is in the relevant section of the contract and 2) what process the objecting driver took in refusing to accept the new terms and 3) was there a clause in the original contract allowing the employer to make variations to the contract of employment (many do have this)? 
If the wording of [1] basically says that the company reserves the right to deduct the cost of damage done to company equipment from the driver’s wages, without any mentions of limitations, liability nor how/when the deducations will be made, then in my opinion you would have a strong case because that would be considered an unreasonable and unfair change to the original contract of employment, thus a breach of contract. If, on the other hand, the company can demonstrate that (for example, like Rjan says) the level of damage being caused by the drivers it at such a level that the costs are putting the company in jeopardy financially, or, the deductions are limited to x amount and/or deductions are only made after a full investigation and review of dashcam footage to prove that the driver was liable (to give a couple of examples) then a tribunal could easily rule that the changes are deemed to be reasonable and fair.
What did the driver do exactly in refusing to accept the new contract? Was this refused by submitting a formal grievance (verbal or written) to the manager with a discussion or meeting taking place to see if an agreement could be reached, or was it just a vocal “I’m not [zb] signing it, they ain’t deducting [zb] all from my wage lololololol” announcement to the 18 year old transport clerk at 6am on Monday morning whom has nothing to do with it? I suspect it was more likely to be the latter than the former, in which case the company has rightly assumed all drivers have accepted the new contract. As Rjan says in his earlier post, a signature is not required and acceptance of the contract is automatically implied after a reasonable period of time if a grievance is not submitted. The fact that the company has not replied to the alleged grievance(s) suggests to me that they don’t have any evidence of one/any being submitted . This will significantly weaken your case at a tribunal.
You cannot just keep quiet and carry on working for a company on your old (expired) terms of employment if you don’t agree to the new contract. By doing so you are implying that you accept the new terms of employment and agree to be bound by them. If you don’t agree to them you have to submit a formal grievance which puts the ball in their court over what to do. The employer should then convince you and demonstrate that the changes to the terms of employment are reasonable, ultimately resulting in your agreement. If you still do not agree then that should result in you being made redundant for refusing to accept what they believe to be reasonable changes. They may offer to re-employ you under the new terms. If you still think that the changes are unreasonable then if you have more than 2 years of service you can take your case to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
If the company chooses not to respond to your grievance then again, that does not mean you are working under your old (expired) contract. If you still refuse to accept the new terms then you can continue working under protest but you would need to sue them for breach of contract to stand any chance of redress over the wage deductions for damage.
Clicky 1 from Employment Lawyers
What to Do If an Employee won’t agree To a Variation of a Contract
Generally speaking a contract of employment may not be varied without the consent of both parties, unless the contract states in unambiguous terms there is no power for an employer to unilaterally change the terms of a contract of employment. A unilateral variation of contract that is deemed to be unreasonable will amount to a repudiation of contract and as such an employee will have recourse to sue.
If an employee will not agree to a variation of contract then they must notify the employer that they are repudiating the contract and then seek redress in the Employment Tribunal. If an employee continues to work, even if under protest, they will be deemed to have accepted the changes after a period where acceptance is deemed to have taken place. Employees can ‘stand and sue’ by working under protest and seeking damages (either for breach of contract, or for unfair dismissal). If they fail to seek redress in the Tribunal or courts however, they are deemed to have left themselves without remedy. (Robinson v Tescom [2008] UKEAT 0567_07_0303, [2008] IRLR 408)
Dismissing an Employee who Refuses a Variation of Contract
In this situation there is no doubt that dismissal has taken place. Given that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed (section 94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996), it is therefore essential that the employer shows that the reason for the dismissal is fair – or potentially fair. Two factors are key in deciding whether or not such a dismissal is fair. The first is that the employer must show that the dismissal was for “some other substantial reason” (section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996), and secondly the employer must show that the decision to dismiss on the basis that the employee refused the new terms is reasonable.
How to Vary a Contract of Employment
If you reserve the right to make reasonable changes to the contract of employment in the contract itself then you may unilaterally makes changes to that contract – so long as the clause is unambiguous.
Otherwise, to vary the contract an employer must:
Seek the agreement of the employee;
Enforce the change and hope the employee continues to work for you – agreeing to the change by conduct;
Terminate the employees’ contract and re-engage under the new terms.
Variation of an Employment Contract by Agreement
Negotiating with your employees or the employee in question so they actually agree to the variation of the contract is the most effective way to vary the terms of the contract. It also negates the possibility of them claiming breach of contract if they agree to the terms. Whilst not absolutely necessary it is advised to get such an agreement in writing.
Enforce the Variation & Hope Employee Continues to Work
This is the least effective way to vary the contract. It could lead to a period of instability and also draws out the problem. An employee could leave at any moment and seek redress in an employment Tribunal. This creates uncertainty for a business and it is highly advised to avoid this route.
Terminate the employees’ contract and re-engage under the new terms
Having employees’ agree to a variation has the distinct advantage that it removes the risk of a claim of unfair dismissal. However when this is not possible it might be the case that an employer needs to terminate the contract(s) and re-engage under the new, proposed, terms. The problem with this method is that as the contract is brought to an end an employee can sue for unfair dismissal in regards to that contract even after accepting the new contract(s). To negate the risk of this compromise agreements can be offered along with the new contracts.
Can I stay and work under protest?
If you work under protest you can either:
● Work under the new terms and
make it clear to your employer that
you do not agree to the change
AND take legal action at a civil
court to sue your employer for
breach of contract. The court will
consider whether the company are
in breach of contract and may
award you damages that you have
suffered as a result of the breach of
contract. This is costly and you
should take legal advice,
OR
● Bring a claim for unlawful deduction
from wages if the change results in
a reduction in your wages. Again
you must inform your employer that
you do not agree to the changes or
that you are agreeing under protest.
Robinson v Tescom tribunal. Different industry but the ruling here is important and sets somewhat of a precedent. Note that the tribunal’s findings did not agree that the employee could continue working under his old contract “under protest” and subsequently found that the employer was not in breach of contract, nor was he unfairly dismissied. Read the claimant’s arguments [16] onwards. Essentially a tribunal takes a dim view of an employee refusing to agree to a new contract and continuing to work there without doing anything about it and hoping the problem goes away. One should tread carefully .
If I was Robroy’s colleague now wielding a wage slip with a deduction for damage, I would definitely challenge it and my next step would be writing a letter to HR/wages department asking them what authorisation do they have to make deductions without my consent, whilst reminding them that I never accepted the revised terms of employment which is documented in my grievance submitted on x date to x manager. I would then sit back and await their reply. I’d also be careful not to engage in any verbal discussions with them and ask that all correspondence on the matter be put in writing so that they cannot later deny what they said (which they will do).
commonrail:
I worked for a firm that paid a compliance bonus.
It was only ever deducted from weak people though.
I had my own contract.
No bonus on Friday…no driver on Monday.
Worked splendidly,for me.
I’ve worked at places via agency - that were more than happy to turn over a driver a week, every week!
Promise you the Earth, don’t deliver come payday, driver walks, take on new one without explaning that the headline hourly rate was something along the lines of the “Stobart Formula”
where if you don’t work on Eurotramps, don’t work Nights, and don’t work Saturdays and Sundays - you end up with minimum wages, and no bonus payments…
Ok RK thanks for that. (And everybody else for the feedback)
To answer some of your points, well from MY own part personally in all this cack in refusing to sign…
I did clearly tell my boss why I objected (verbally)
Unfortunately I did not know I was supposed to put my objection in writing as a set procedure, and was not told so. (and afaik neither did any of the others who refused to sign it)
About a month later.I took some kind of h&s type course bs to qualify me to go into a certain customer’s site.
This was done by one of the bods sent up from head depot.
After the course it came into our general conversation that I was one of the few that had not signed up to this revised contract.
He said …
‘‘I’ll explain the reasons to you for charging drivers for damage’’…
and went on to give me a sob story about habitual damage type drivers, and what it was costing in terms of their insurance,.and that basically the likes of me and a few others need not worry.
Then conversation went along the lines of…
‘‘So do you now understand why we want you to sign’’
Me…‘‘Yes’’
‘‘Do you see it from our point of view’’
Me…‘‘Yes I suppose in a way’’
‘‘So will you now sign it’’
Me…‘‘No’’
And that was it until.about 5 yrs later (now) they are charging some drivers for damage at our depot, furthermore none of which I would describe as habitual damage drivers.