Despite the support measures, the coronavirus crisis can hit your business hard. Can you then unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment? Or do you need employee consent? The principle is that a contract is agreed between the two parties under the conditions laid down at the time of its conclusion; Therefore, it is not possible for a party to unilaterally change the terms of a contract. In the present case, the District Court found that the employer did not meet the above-mentioned criteria. The change in terms and conditions of employment was so profound for the employee that the employer`s poor financial situation was not sufficient to justify the change. In the amtsgericht`s view, the position assigned to the employee after the restructuring was also not appropriate. It is clear that the risks of a successful prosecution are greater if an employment contract does not have an integrated power of change in relation to the specific duration of the employment. This is generally not the case with pension and benefit plans, as most plans have the right to change what is explicitly stated. In all cases where an employee objects to a change, an employer should assess the risks and consider terminating the employment relationship appropriately, and then offer to reinstate the person under the new conditions after the expiry of the reasonable notice period. As previously explained, applications for constructive dismissal require proof that a proposed change constitutes a material change to a substantial provision of the employment relationship. Significant changes typically include significant changes to conditions such as an employee`s compensation, working conditions, and employment-related responsibilities.
One complaint that often arises from employees is that the employer unilaterally changed the original terms and conditions of employment in some way. Employment contracts, like all contracts, usually require the consent of both parties to make a change. However, it is quite common for employment contracts to include « flexibility clauses » that allow the employer to unilaterally change all or part of its conditions in certain circumstances. Courts and tribunals have been very reluctant to allow employers to use these clauses, insisting that any right to unilateral change must be stated in « clear and unambiguous » terms. In order to minimize the legal effects associated with unilateral changes to employment contracts and policies, employers are requested, although the « Van der Lely/Taxi Hofman » decision shows that an employee is obliged to accept an appropriate change in position due to changed circumstances, it is not possible to make a change in the terms and conditions of employment without the employee`s consent. This is shown by the judgment of the Rotterdam Sub-District Court of 5-6-2015, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:3952. Changes to an employment contract or other contract usually require notification to the party who will be directly affected by the change. However, in many employment relationships, there may be an unequal balance of power in favor of the employer, which could indicate that an employer has the right to make unilateral changes without your input or signature. In the case of social media, the Terms of Use generally reserve the right to unilaterally change or modify the Terms of Use or Services by simply posting a modified privacy policy on a website.
Instagram unilaterally changed its terms regarding intellectual property rights in the published photos, which were later challenged and revoked. The definition of the minimum notification can be found in the uses applicable to the undertaking concerned. As a result, in addition to justified resistance and possible claims for damages for breach of contract, employers should also pay attention to the possibility of termination claims arising from allegations of implied termination. In Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services, 2015 SCC 10, the Supreme Court of Canada used a two-part test to determine whether an employee was constructively dismissed: Some clauses provide for a unilateral amendment to the terms of the contract. For example, alternative obligation clauses give a party a choice between two objects. The debtor can choose which of the objects he wants to perform. In accordance with Articles 1307 et seq. of the French Civil Code, it is necessary to determine the period before which the auxiliary object must be exported. This clause could be worded as follows: « (f)or its warranty, the driver can choose between two years and 60,000 km. However, it can be said that this is not a real modification of the contract, since the object of the modification is already defined at the time of the conclusion of the contract. It is possible that some of these unilateral changes also fall under unfair labour practice, but that is the subject of another article.
Another form of employment contract is a collective agreement or a union contract. Collective agreements are negotiated by the union to which you belong and your employer. If the parties reach a provisional agreement, it will be sent to the union members for ratification. The contract comes into force when the members of the union ratify or approve it and the union and the employer sign their names. If you are covered by a union contract and your employer tries to make changes, the company could face unfair labour practices charges before the National Labour Relations Board. The National Labour Relations Act prohibits treaty amendments without the participation of both parties, and as a member of a union, you would not be the one to sign it anyway. According to the third option proposed by the Court of Appeal in the Vronko case, if negotiations fail and an employee refuses to accept the proposed amendment, the employer has two options to minimize the risk of subsequent claims for constructive dismissal: this does not mean that any unilateral change in working conditions will be considered a dismissal. but the employer wishes to continue the employment relationship, but on modified terms that have not been agreed upon by the employee and where the employer has not consulted the employee on the changes. In general, changes to working conditions cannot be made without prior consultation with the employee on the proposed changes and the employee`s consent. Therefore, there are many provisions of EU law that allow a trader to unilaterally amend a contract that are considered abusive. An unfair term provided for in a contract with a consumer has no effect on him since it becomes non-binding. In France, the employer can modify non-essential elements of an employment contract.
This change is only considered as a change in working conditions. Thus, on 10 October 2000, the French Court of Cassation ruled that the rejection of such an amendment constituted a fault but not a serious offence (French Court of Cassation, Social Chamber of 23 February 2005). In this regard, the need for a « new consideration » has long been recognised as a prerequisite for the applicability of contractual amendments. A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Holland v. Hostopia.com Inc., 2015 ONCA 762, illustrates the consequences of unilaterally modifying the basic terms of an existing employment contract. In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal referred to Hobbs v. TDI Canada Ltd., [2004] 192 SAC 141 (Ont.C.A.), and reaffirmed the need for a « new consideration » when employers purport to amend contracts of employment and introduce new material conditions. A contract may also provide that the trader may unilaterally make changes to the contract in the context of technological development, provided that such changes do not lead to an increase in prices and a deterioration in quality and that the characteristics to which the consumer has committed continue to be included in the contract. This last exception makes it possible to take into account the needs of technological development […].
Commentaires récents