Discrimination, harassment, redundancy, O H & S - Position removed and alternatives do not appeal

Hello and I hope someone can give me some advice regarding my situation.

For eight years I have worked as a service engineer.

A year ago loss of business in my area meant that I was asked to spend two days each week working on our technical helpline, an office-based job troubleshooting faults over the phone.

Yesterday my employer told me that as we have continued to lose business in my area my engineer position is being removed, and I cannot continue to be an engineer unless I move interstate (at the company's expense). If I choose not to move I must agree to give up my routine engineering responsibilities and work on the helpline full-time, at the same pay.

I don't want to move interstate and I don't want to take the job on the helpline, since I find it very unchallenging and boring.

Can anyone give me any advice on what would happen if I chose not to accept either proposal, or how I should proceed? My employer says that my skills and experience make the helpline job a viable alternative but the nature of the work would be rather different. I sense that if I decide not to choose either option I will be expected to resign.

Many thanks.

Edited by arkle - 15/August/2012 at 00:13

You need not resign (and should not). To do so will remove the companies liability to pay you redundancy should you not take up their offer.

Thank you. But would they be liable to pay me redundancy when (quote) my "skills and experience meet the requirements of the new role"? I think that they consider this offer of an alternate position sufficient to exempt them any redundancy liability.

They have made an offer of either moving or remaining and performing lower skilled duties but at the same pay rate. The ball is in your court, it's is all they have to do in order to avoid redundancy payments.

If it was me and I did not wish to move, I'd take the lower responsibility job while I looked for alternate suitable employment with another employer.

Edited by MartinO - 09/December/2011 at 22:55

Martin is on the money. That's how I see it as well.

Originally posted by MartinO

They have made an offer of either moving or remaining and performing lower skilled duties but at the same pay rate. The ball is in your court, it's is all they have to do in order to avoid redundancy payments.

If it was me and I did not wish to move, I'd take the lower responsibility job while I looked for alternate suitable employment with another employer.

Thank you MartinO, that seems like reasonable, though saddening, advice.

Thanks anyway.

Edited by arkle - 15/August/2012 at 00:14

So, seven months ago, following advice, I agreed to take the lower skilled telephone answering job. Immediately I was told that the change in my role was being delayed by six months because staffing issues in another state meant that I would be required to work interstate away from home as an engineer one week in each two or three week period to help out until the situation was resolved. After the six month period, on 1 July, I would move to the full time telephone role. This placed a large burden on me, being away from home so much, but I did as I was asked.

Two weeks ago my employment contract changed and I moved to my new telephone role as expected. My contract states that I am now a full time telephone person but will be required to work up to 20% of my time in the field as an engineer to keep my skills current.

Today I have been told that due to continued staffing issues I am to continue to work interstate away from home as an engineer, one week in each two week period until the end of this year, and possibly continuing into 2013.

Notwithstanding the broken promises, this amount of interstate travel is placing a terrible burden on my home life, my relationship, my hobbies and my well-being. I am willing to agree to one week in four but one week in two seems totally unfair. No other engineer in Australia is being asked to do this. I feel that I am being pushed to resign.

My questions are

Can I be forced to work away from home for 50% of my time?
Does the fact that my new contract states that my field time is limited to 20% hold any weight in negotiations?
If my employer refuses to accept my offer of one week in four weeks and I refuse to work one week in two, what repercussions are likely, and where would I stand?

Edited by arkle - 15/August/2012 at 00:16

Gah. There is a huge shortage of skilled labour in Oz and I cannot believe they are having this attitude with you. Any variation to the terms in your contract should be negotiated with you. If your employer doesn't accept your counter offer ask him to offer you something more palatable - failing that I guess they or you will have to decide if you need to part ways.

Originally posted by arkle

Does the fact that my new contract states that my field time is limited to 20% hold any weight in negotiations?

I would think that this is a major factor in any negotiations.

Thank you. My concern is that if I challenge the terms of my current contract they will simply draw up a new contract that I will be obliged to agree with (or resign) as happened previously.

arkle

The current contract cannot be replaced with a new contract unless there is a clause in it that provides for this.

Does the current contract have an end date?

No specific end date no.

arkle

If there are no replacement details in the current contract, you can just decline to sign any new contract and say I'll stick with the current contract thanks.

Well a quick update from me. My contract does have a clause stating that I can be required to perform other reasonable duties from time to time. I am therefore spending five of the first nine weeks of my new full time telephone helpline role working interstate away from home as an engineer due to staffing issues. This is the decision of the service director. My immediate manager thinks that this travelling burden is likely to continue throughout the rest of 2012 and possibly well into 2013. It is stressful to be asked to agree to a lower skilled job when your local engineering position is being removed, but then find yourself working away from home as an engineer for more than 50% of your time. At what point does this become an unreasonable expectation. It is messing up my home life and I hate the lonely life I now face stuck in a hotel room night after night.

arkle

Do you have long service leave due/available? If you have, take the time off and chillout.

During this time think about your financial security first, then job satisfaction. Also, have a look for other employment available.

Do not rush your decision. You may be surprised in the fact that in a year or two, things may look up in your job and you will be pleased that you did not "chuck it in".

Thank you StandTall, I'm not going to do anything rash.

My real query was about whether there is a legally accepted definition of "reasonable" when it comes to making an employee work frequent weeks away from home. Asking an employee to work 50% of their time in another state does not seem fair from where I'm standing, but I could be wrong?

arkle

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, I'd just like to know if there's an established definition of "reasonable" when it comes to forcing an employee to work frequent weeks away from home for an indefinite period of time.

Thanks,

arkle

Edited by arkle - 13/August/2012 at 07:34

Originally posted by arkle

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, I'd just like to know if there's an established definition of "reasonable" when it comes to forcing an employee to work frequent weeks away from home for an indefinite period of time.

There's no definition, it's really something that would be considered by the court on a individual case basis

I'm sorry, but four months into my new telephone helpline contract I find myself in trouble again :(

The national director and human resources manager are flying interstate specifically to meet with me in a week's time. They have said that the reason for the visit is to ask me to move interstate again. I have asked what the alternative would be if I chose not to relocate but they say that they will not discuss it over the telephone.

My contract states my current state as my work location. Where would I stand if I choose to decline their relocation offer?

Thank you for helping,

arkle

You do not have to relocate if you do not wish to, if there is no suitable work where you are located, and your position is to be abolished, I believe you may be entitled to a redundancy payout.

Unfortunately your total time with the company does not seem to be extensive, so any payout may not amount to much.

If they really want your services but at a different location the ball is in your court to negotiate a relocation package and pay rate that suits you.

Others may expand on this.