MACC move worries
After listening to colleague worries over the last few weeks, and knowing that managers read these forums, I thought I’d air some of them and see if there’s any reaction; and please-no criticisms from those who are unaffected.
With the current and unforeseen recession, some colleagues are extremely concerned about the negative equity they will find themselves in with the move to NPC. Houses, flats etc bought before the economic downturn, and subsequent landslide in values, will put staff into large amounts of negative equity as GSP figures reflect current market saleable value instead of either mortgage value or value pre-recession. Figures can be overhead and openly discussed of amounts ranging from £20,000 to £90,000. Some of these mortgages were taken out by people either new to the unit or by people hoping to better their chances of finding comparable properties in the move or even by staff with expanding families. Some staff have said the move will now effectively bankrupt them; with the only apparent NATS remedy being an interest free loan over 3-5 years. For some that represents an unaffordable amount to repay in that period.
Offers made and accepted on property within the NPC catchment area are now found to be in excess of the current saleable value due to the economic downturn; meaning that up to a year before the move some staff are already into a negative equity situation before they move and in some cases before their new property is even finished, even though NATS encourage early moving.
In this atmosphere people are beginning to question the legality of whether NATS can force employees to relocate in the knowledge that it will effectively (no exaggeration) bankrupt them or at least force them into such a massively adverse financial situation which would not have occurred if a recession had not appeared. Any current negative equity staff may find themselves in would, of course, have no meaning if they were not in a position of having to sell because of an employer’s decision to close the unit. This situation will of course be made worse by the impending change to redundancy terms which will take effect at the time of the move. Good timing that one!
Staff thoughts;
Redundancy. The legal definition;
‘The statutory definition provides that the dismissal must be attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that:
• The employer has ceased, or intends to cease, completely or in an employment place, to carry on the business for the purposes for which the employee was employed; or
• The requirements of the business for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind, completely or in a particular place, has ceased or diminished, or is expected to. ‘
It seems to most staff that the legal definition does indeed apply in this case, the ‘mobility clause’ being subject to legal challenge.
Constructive Dismissal. Definition;
‘ If you're forced to quit your job because of the way you're treated, it's called constructive dismissal. Although there's no actual dismissal by the employer, the end result is the same as if you'd been sacked. It's often very hard to prove that your employer's behaviour was so bad as to make you leave, so you should get legal advice before leaving your job.
The reason for leaving your job must be serious - there must be a fundamental breach of your contract. Examples include:
a serious breach of your contract (eg not paying you or suddenly demoting you for no reason)
forcing you to accept unreasonable changes to your conditions of employment without your agreement (eg telling you to work in another town, or making you work night shifts when your contract is only for day work)
bullying, harassment or violence against you by work colleagues
making you work in dangerous conditions
The employer's breach of contract may be one serious incident or the last in a series of less important incidents that are serious when taken together.’
Again, in the second instance, the term seems to apply to the MACC case where an adverse financial effect due to recession would definitely result because of a relocation.
Whilst the whole banding dispute (which of course is not helping in this instance) has not gone away and will shortly be tested legally, these other concerns (redundancy and constructive dismissal) cannot effectively be legally tested until notices of posting have been issued. MACC staff believe that these will commence in the beginning of the new year; at which point these other issues will then be open to legal challenge.
Could the recession give NATS the chance or ‘excuse’ to delay the move for ‘business reasons’, thus allowing property prices to somewhat recover and make the move less painful for staff?
Wouldn’t dream of suggesting it.