Change employment contract? Get free legal advice

Questioner

I was taken over by another company 2 years ago. My permanent contract was also taken over. Everything has remained the same. Now they want to work in shifts. Am I obliged to do this?

Lawyer

This is a difficult question to answer off the top of my head. The most important question to start with is: has the company you are currently working for worked in shifts for a long time or are they just introducing it now? If the latter is the case, you will not be able to use the takeover of 2 years ago as an argument to refuse it. In that case, you and your 'new' colleagues are simply equal: you will all have to work in shifts for the first time. Moreover, an employer cannot simply introduce shift work (suddenly), but it depends so much on the circumstances of the case that it is not possible to give a ready-made answer. I understand that you would have preferred a clear 'yes' or 'no', but I hope this helps you at least for the time being. Good luck and kind regards,

Lawyer

In addition to what Mr Ten Brinke writes: It is important for determining your rights and obligations - among other things - what is stated in your agreement/regulations/collective labour agreement about changing a function/conditions etc. Some general explanation: the general principle is that an employer may not change employment conditions/a function without the employee's prior consent. There are, however, exceptions: 1. If a unilateral amendment clause has been agreed, the employer does not need the employee's prior consent to amend the employment conditions. At least: •The amendment clause must be agreed in writing. The clause can be included in the employment contract, the collective labour agreement or a personnel guide that has been declared applicable. •The employer must have a weighty interest in the change, for example to avert possible bankruptcy or layoffs. And this employer's interest must outweigh the employee's interest, so that the employee's interest must yield. 2. However, if no unilateral amendment clause has been laid down, there are still options for the employer. Case law shows that there are strict conditions: •There must be changed circumstances which provide sufficient reason to make a proposal to change the conditions; •The proposal must be reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. •The employee can reasonably be expected to accept the proposal. Whether the change is reasonable depends on, among other things: • The nature of the changed circumstances. A judge will more quickly consider a proposal reasonable if the employer can demonstrate that the company is experiencing serious business economic problems. An example is offering a lower position to prevent the employee from being dismissed. •The nature and significance of the change. For example, changing the function may be considerably more significant than abolishing a bonus. •The employer's interest. Major financial problems may constitute a legitimate interest, but increasing profits may not. •The employee's interest in not changing. In the case of a transfer, for example, a factor may be that the employee cannot travel far due to personal circumstances. • Is a reasonable phasing-out arrangement possible? Also check whether a collective labor agreement applies, or whether a possible works council must be consulted. And is the change collective or individual? For further advice/assistance, you can contact one of the employment lawyers here directly without obligation, e.g. via the 'direct contact' link that you will see with this answer if you are logged in. I'm happy to help you with this.