London manager refusing to take pay cut was unfairly dismissed London manager refusing to take pay cut was unfairly dismissed

London manager refusing to take pay cut was unfairly dismissed
09 Feb 2018

A London betting shop manager who refused to take up a new role that involved a 20% pay cut during a business restructure was unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has found.

Under her new contract, William Hill’s Battersea store manager, Nicola Dinham, would have been doing the same work as her current position. But her £25,550 (US$36,347) annual salary would have fallen to £20,721 (US$29,477) – a reduction of £4,829 (US$6,867).

The change would also have ended her entitlement for time and a half when working on Sundays and double pay for working on bank holidays. Dinham would likewise have been required to work five days per week, between Monday and Sunday, as opposed to five days between Monday and Saturday. She had 18 years’ service before being dismissed in January 2017.

In a judgment, the tribunal allowed Dinham’s unfair dismissal claim, acknowledging that she would have been undertaking the same work for less pay if she had signed the contract. The judge said William Hill’s actions were “dismissive” and displayed “unreasonable inflexibility”.

In July 2016, Nicola Frampton, director for UK retail at William Hill, wrote to Dinham to inform her about a company reorganisation, which would include combining shop manager and deputy manager roles into a customer experience manager position.

Eight managers, alongside Dinham, refused to accept the new terms of employment. William Hill then offered her a £4,829 (US$6,870) supplement for the first year-only of her new role.

Dinham raised concerns, cited her length of service with the company and asked whether redundancy was an option. But she was told that her contract of employment was terminated on notice, although she had the option to be re-engaged by the firm. Dinham was told she was out of time to appeal.

In the finding of unfair dismissal, employment Judge Hall-Smith acknowledged that William Hill had conducted a reasonable process in terms of informing and consulting with staff, but said that telling Dinham that her complaint was out of time made the procedure unfair.

The judge also agreed with Dinham that her length of service should have been taken into consideration. A remedy hearing will be scheduled in due course.

Emma Woollacott

Emma Woollacott is a freelance business journalist. Her work has appeared in a wide range of publications, including the Guardian, the Times, Forbes and the BBC.

 

A London betting shop manager who refused to take up a new role that involved a 20% pay cut during a business restructure was unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has found.

Under her new contract, William Hill’s Battersea store manager, Nicola Dinham, would have been doing the same work as her current position. But her £25,550 (US$36,347) annual salary would have fallen to £20,721 (US$29,477) – a reduction of £4,829 (US$6,867).

The change would also have ended her entitlement for time and a half when working on Sundays and double pay for working on bank holidays. Dinham would likewise have been required to work five days per week, between Monday and Sunday, as opposed to five days between Monday and Saturday. She had 18 years’ service before being dismissed in January 2017.

In a judgment, the tribunal allowed Dinham’s unfair dismissal claim, acknowledging that she would have been undertaking the same work for less pay if she had signed the contract. The judge said William Hill’s actions were “dismissive” and displayed “unreasonable inflexibility”.

In July 2016, Nicola Frampton, director for UK retail at William Hill, wrote to Dinham to inform her about a company reorganisation, which would include combining shop manager and deputy manager roles into a customer experience manager position.

Eight managers, alongside Dinham, refused to accept the new terms of employment. William Hill then offered her a £4,829 (US$6,870) supplement for the first year-only of her new role.

Dinham raised concerns, cited her length of service with the company and asked whether redundancy was an option. But she was told that her contract of employment was terminated on notice, although she had the option to be re-engaged by the firm. Dinham was told she was out of time to appeal.

In the finding of unfair dismissal, employment Judge Hall-Smith acknowledged that William Hill had conducted a reasonable process in terms of informing and consulting with staff, but said that telling Dinham that her complaint was out of time made the procedure unfair.

The judge also agreed with Dinham that her length of service should have been taken into consideration. A remedy hearing will be scheduled in due course.

Emma Woollacott

Emma Woollacott is a freelance business journalist. Her work has appeared in a wide range of publications, including the Guardian, the Times, Forbes and the BBC.

 

Leave a Reply

  • Posted On March 25, 2018 by Cialis online

    The subsequent time I read a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I imply, I know it was my choice to learn, however I really thought youd have one thing interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about one thing that you might repair in case you werent too busy in search of attention.

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing