Change in working conditions

Whitecarstones

A friend of mine signed a contract for a company almost three years ago. It was a "casual permanent contract" which did not specify any hours.

He has worked the duration in this company two night shifts a week.

He now gets a phonecall to say effective immediately, he is basically just on call if they need him.

He has a wife and two children to support. He cannot rely on being called in once in a blue moon.

Has he any redress against this company for changing his hours, or are they entitled to do it because his contract did not specify the hours in the first place?

Thanks

Peregrinus

In general, a zero-hours contract (under which you're committed to being available to work, but not guaranteed to get any work) is banned.

There is an exception for a contract for "work of a casual nature", and the fact that the word "casual" appears in the title of the contract suggests that the employer intends to rely on this exception. However the fact that he was getting a regular two shifts per week for three years suggests that the position may not, in fact, be casual, but regular.

He should get on to the Workplace Relations Commission for more information on zero-hours contracts and employees's rights, and then think about whether he wants to make a complaint to them about this.

Diceicle

Peregrinus wrote: »

In general, a zero-hours contract (under which you're committed to being available to work, but not guaranteed to get any work) is banned.

There is an exception for a contract for "work of a casual nature", and the fact that the word "casual" appears in the title of the contract suggests that the employer intends to rely on this exception. However the fact that he was getting a regular two shifts per week for three years suggests that the position may not, in fact, be casual, but regular.

He should get on to the Workplace Relations Commission for more information on zero-hours contracts and employees's rights, and then think about whether he wants to make a complaint to them about this.

Agree with this post.
It would appear your friend is headed to the exit either way.
Probable best case scenario - the company pay him off / make him redundent and he leaves with a lump of cash.

Whitecarstones

Thanks for that advice. Appreciated.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In general, a zero-hours contract (under which you're committed to being available to work, but not guaranteed to get any work) is banned.

There is an exception for a contract for "work of a casual nature", and the fact that the word "casual" appears in the title of the contract suggests that the employer intends to rely on this exception. However the fact that he was getting a regular two shifts per week for three years suggests that the position may not, in fact, be casual, but regular.

He should get on to the Workplace Relations Commission for more information on zero-hours contracts and employees's rights, and then think about whether he wants to make a complaint to them about this.

Whitecarstones

Cheers

quote="Diceicle;112314625"]Agree with this post.
It would appear your friend is headed to the exit either way.
Probable best case scenario - the company pay him off / make him redundent and he leaves with a lump of cash.[/quote]

Darc19

Diceicle wrote: »

Agree with this post.
It would appear your friend is headed to the exit either way.
Probable best case scenario - the company pay him off / make him redundent and he leaves with a lump of cash.

At two shifts a week for 3 years, that "lump of cash" will be the value of 6 shifts.