Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

change in job title and duties without consultation NH

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • change in job title and duties without consultation NH

    My spouse works for a major bank going through major changes. Her job title and hours are stated explicitly in her original offer letter. The duties of the position are detailed in writing. Recently she discovered that her supervisor had changed her job to a higher pay grade job without informing her or compensating her. He now expects her to fulfill the duties of the new job title without the pay increase. She confronted him about the discrepency and he informed her that she would have been part of a very recent lay-off had he not changed her job title. According to higher-ups the lay-off was done because it was ilegal to force individuals to make major job changes such as duties, work hours, or travel time. Is this accurate? Does my wife have any recourse should her failure to comply result in termination? If she is "laid-off" does the company have to compensate her in the same manner other laid-off employees were treated (severance)?

  • #2
    Originally posted by DTucker
    My spouse works for a major bank going through major changes. Her job title and hours are stated explicitly in her original offer letter. The duties of the position are detailed in writing. Recently she discovered that her supervisor had changed her job to a higher pay grade job without informing her or compensating her. He now expects her to fulfill the duties of the new job title without the pay increase. She confronted him about the discrepency and he informed her that she would have been part of a very recent lay-off had he not changed her job title. According to higher-ups the lay-off was done because it was ilegal to force individuals to make major job changes such as duties, work hours, or travel time. Is this accurate? Does my wife have any recourse should her failure to comply result in termination? If she is "laid-off" does the company have to compensate her in the same manner other laid-off employees were treated (severance)?
    It sounds like the company did some "reworking" to save your wife's job. If there were layoffs at the time going on, it makes sense that they could not afford to give her the pay that went with the job-saving title.
    It is not illegal to require an employee to perform tasks and to work the hours the company requires as long as no discrimination on sex, race, age, creed, etc. exists.
    Severance is a company policy and not a law.
    Employers have a lot of leeway in any perks they offer to employees, again, as long as they are not discriminatory; they may be unfair, but they are not illegal.

    Let me know if you have further questions.
    Sue
    Sue
    FORUM MODERATOR

    www.laborlawtalk.com

    Comment


    • #3
      response to Sue in ref to job changes

      Do you happen to know if laws vary when a merger takes place. Are there sometimes agreements made between the seller and purchaser that may affect how employees of the purchased company are treated. I am trying to understand why my wife was informed that job changes were illegal?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DTucker
        Do you happen to know if laws vary when a merger takes place. Are there sometimes agreements made between the seller and purchaser that may affect how employees of the purchased company are treated. I am trying to understand why my wife was informed that job changes were illegal?

        It would help to know who told her that was illegal and why it was illegal. While they cannot "force" an employee since that employee can obviously quit, again, it looks like some paper shuffling that occured to help her keep a position at the company. The confusing part is why they did not tell her this.
        Sue
        FORUM MODERATOR

        www.laborlawtalk.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Warn

          Could it be that the new company is considering a large layoff? If the company is planning a mass layoff, a law called, "WARN" kicks in. You can read more about WARN at the following website: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/guide/layoffs.htm

          Let us know if you have additional questions.
          Lillian Connell

          Forum Moderator
          www.laborlawtalk.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Thank you

            Thank you for assistance.My wife found the reason for the so called "illegality". The companies did have an agreement as to how the employees would be dispositioned, an abreviated form of the agreement was posted on the employee website. I beleive the situation is close to resolution in the form of a raise. If it isn't resolved you may hear from me again. Thank you Again Dave T

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DTucker
              Thank you for assistance.My wife found the reason for the so called "illegality". The companies did have an agreement as to how the employees would be dispositioned, an abreviated form of the agreement was posted on the employee website. I beleive the situation is close to resolution in the form of a raise. If it isn't resolved you may hear from me again. Thank you Again Dave T
              What was the "illegal reason" if you know?
              Thanks much and best wishes.
              sue
              Sue
              FORUM MODERATOR

              www.laborlawtalk.com

              Comment


              • #8
                According to the document there were certain guidelines as to the dispositioning of employees in the merger among them was that any employee who's duties, hours, or travel underwent "signifigant changes" were to be compensated via a severence package. The document went on to define "signifigant" for each category. Since the bank may have violated this agreement/contract, I am guessing that the individual felt breach of contract would be illegal.
                Inerestingly enough the document also stated that the employees who were to be terminated were to be given "at least 2 weeks notice" if you are familiar with the bank I am speaking of you probably know that approximately 1 month ago 1500 employees of the bank were "released from duty" they were told to cleanout there desks and leave the premisis of the bank immediately. Obviously the bank must define "termination" differently than the dictionary does.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sounds like more of a legal case now than a labor issue. Thanks for your response, and best of luck.

                  Keep us posted.
                  Sue
                  Sue
                  FORUM MODERATOR

                  www.laborlawtalk.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Guess

                    My guess is that the previous layoff was not as a result of the merger agreement, but instead, was a preemptive move. That's why the notice wasn't given.
                    Lillian Connell

                    Forum Moderator
                    www.laborlawtalk.com

                    Comment

                    The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                    Working...
                    X