Precedents set by previous owners of a company

Nutzandboltz

Hi all,

Just looking for some opinions as to whether or not it would be worth my time taking a matter at work further. The company I work for has recently changed hands, and anyone who has stayed with the company was told that our work contracts would be kept as is.

Now, the previous owners had an unofficial policy that if one of the employees on the production floor got hurt for whatever reason, be it break an arm or was recovering from an operation, or suffered from any condtions that prevented them from working at their normal duties on the production floor, could help out in the offices, as long as their own doctors and the company's doctors certified them for light / modified duties.

Recently, it came to light, when one of the lads went to avail of it, that the new owners do not allow this. If you are out sick, you are out sick, full stop. They claim that it was an unofficial policy in the first place and they do not need to abide by it. As someone who did avail of it due to a medical condition that I have, that will crop up again, I find this worrying, and though it was unofficial in the first place, surely if the new owners have truly accepted our terms and conditions as is, the precedent set by the previous owners should be maintained.

Anyone have an opinion? Should I ask the union where it stands on this, or even take it further if I need to?

Mrs OBumble

Have you any documentation to prove it was allowed?

Nutzandboltz

No, I'm afraid not. As I said, it was unofficial, and it was done with agreement of your manager, with the only real rule behind it being that your own doctor and the company doctor certifying you for light duties. I there may have been email traffic from various employees concerning it, but we no longer have access to the previous owners email system. All that would be there would be basically considered word of mouth. Even the guy I mentioned in the first post actually had the approval for light duties from both doctors, but it was the new owners HR that put a stop to it.

ted1

that generally the rule, you are either fit for work or your not.

you should be able to claim from welfare if you are not fit for work.

Jim2007

If the practice was undocumented, then the chances that it was discussed with the new owners at time they took over the business is very low to non existent.

The other thing is that if you are not certified to do the job you were contracted to do, then you are on sick leave and entitled to whatever sick pay or social security is normally in that situation, nothing more. Paying someone a full salary while the hang around the office doing tasks that did not warrant employing someone to do, is not going to fly with the new owhers who have just forked out lots of money to acquire the company.

How often are people certified sick…. once maybe every five years or even less….

bucketybuck

You were told that your contracts would be kept as is.

But you are asking about something that isn't in your contract?

Its one thing for new owners to take over obligations, but I wouldn't at all expect them to take over every little unofficial little side deal that people perhaps once had. If the old owners let people smoke on the workshop floor should the new owners have to continue that?

They own the place, they are allowed to decide how it runs and operates, so as long as they are not breaking a contract then I don't see what you can do about this.

Peregrinus

The new owners don't have a choice about what to take on. They're bound by all the employment obligations of the former owners, regardless of whether they knew about them or not when they bought the company. If they didn't know about them they may have a claim against the former owners for damages for non-disclosure/misrepresentation/breach of warranty/something of the kind, but that's a row between the new owners and the old owners; it doesn't affect the employees' rights.

So the question comes down to this; had this practice in relation to being given light duties while affected by impaired capacity acheived such a degree of consistency, regularity, etc that it had become something that an employee could have enforced against the old owners? If the answer to that question is "yes", then the employee can enforce it against the new owners.

Nutzandboltz

HI all,

Thanks for the replies and it's given me a bit to think about. As it turns out, the guy the company did turn down lately is after the union to look into it anyway, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out, especially in light of the replies. Thanks again.

Avatar in the Post

I agree with Peregrinus, Custom and Practice has a long history of being held up legally.