Jacob Williams https://jacobwilliams.com

When they received notification of their re-evaluated pay grades at the end of January, council employees were told that if they signed up by February 28th, they would receive one-off perks.

Employees who were getting a pay increase out of this pay and grading review were to receive the extra amount on their salary backdated a year on top, whilst the perk for employees who were losing out was a lump-sum amounting to the difference in their salary as a one-off payment. For legal reasons the council were conscious not to call it a bonus or compensation, but instead labelled it as a ‘hardship payment.’

Ten days before the original February 28th deadline, the council sent out an email ‘reminding’ employees “…of the consequences of deciding not to sign and return an acceptance form.”

This included the threat that, failure to sign up by the 28th would result in back-pay or hardship payments being forfeited, and the ultimate possibility of ‘dismissal and re-engagement.’

The memo went on to say:

“A handful of signed acceptance forms have been returned with the words ‘under duress’ added.”

“All employees should note that the addition of these words invalidates the acceptance form. For the acceptance form to be valid it must be unqualified – only a signature and a date are required. If acceptance forms bearing the words ‘under duress’ (or similar additions) are received towards the end of February, there may be insufficient time to obtain and return a replacement.”

This memo – for the employees who received and read it – leaves no doubt that their forms were to be invalidated if the words ‘under duress’ or, indeed, anything other than the signature and date were added to them. Reasons are not given, though it would not be a wild assumption to suggest that it was for technical or legal reasons.

I was recently approached by a council employee –let’s call them X – who signed and dated the necessary sections of the paperwork, and additionally emblazoned them with the words ‘under duress.’

The acceptance forms, which X had also accompanied with a note protesting over the way they felt they had been treated, were posted via recorded delivery on February 26th, which was two days before this contentious topic was on the agenda of the February full council meeting.

X tells me they were unaware that a week beforehand the council had sent out a memo warning employees not to include the words ‘under duress’ on their yellow-coloured form, and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve it.

It was only after the publicity following the council meeting that X first became aware of this ‘under duress’ warning memo circulated by the council, and subsequently realised that the addition of those words had inadvertently invalidated the acceptance form they had returned.

X also understood that, without realising it, these actions were going to prove beneficial to their cause, because councillors voted during the meeting that members of staff who hadn’t already agreed to their new contracts before February 28th would be given the following:

1) Access to all information (job description etc) upon which new grades of pay have been based

2) A four week period following the receipt of the above to decide whether or not to accept the new terms

3) The date of an appeal, should one be requested following consideration of the additional information made available

Having heard nothing since handing the form in or following the council meeting, X contacted the council in mid-March, asking what their position was now that their form had been invalidated by the inclusion of ‘under duress,’ and requested the further information to which they were now entitled as a result of the council vote.

Shortly afterwards X received a reply stating that their returned form had not been scrapped as they had anticipated, but that it was deemed by the council to have constituted a perfectly acceptable contractual agreement to a change of their terms and conditions. The letter X received states:

“We note that you did in fact return the acceptance form, signed but chose to add a statement to the effect that you had done so out of fear of the consequences of not signing.”

“There has been no compulsion on you to accept the new terms and conditions of employment and/or the new pay and grading structure.”

“Please note that in these circumstances, the Council has accepted your form given that in our view it represents unqualified acceptance of the new terms. We do not however agree that you have accepted the new terms and conditions under duress. The term ‘duress’ has a specific legal meaning which is not applicable to this process.”

What this shows quite clearly – to me – is that the council will change its rules in the interests of the council, and to the detriment of its workforce, at will.

This example also offers the strongest indicator possible that the February 18th warning memo was just a hollow threat, and nothing more, designed solely to intimidate vulnerable employees who were thinking of registering a rebellion against what they perceived as a gun being held to their head.

When it suited the council, the inclusion of the words ‘under duress’ was construed as a deal-breaker, but when it suited X, the inclusion of the words ‘under duress’ posed no stumbling block whatsoever.