Employer wants to cut salary on return to work

[Ceebee77]

I have been working in the same Lecturing team (Education) for 14 years. My team has always had a slightly better salary than the rest of the staff as this was negotiated between my manager and HR. It was decided that we would have hybrid contracts that involved elements of both support contracts and academic contracts relevant to our roles. In 2009 I was promoted to full-time coordinator (the job was advertised at a certain pay scale) again getting a hybrid contract like the rest of my team members.
I got pregnant and returned to work on a 0.6 basis and was offered a new contract with 7 days (1.0) less annual leave than my original contract. I kept on emailing HR to sort it out, but nothing happened. I even tried to get the Union involved but there were other disputes at the college and my issue was sidelined and the head of HR who was dealing with my issue left.

Last year I found out I was pregnant again and took maternity leave. While on leave I got a letter informing me of my correct salary but saying that my annual leave would be cut (8 days 1.0). I questioned this with the HR, they took months to respond. They have now agreed not to cut my annual leave but feel it is inappropriate for me to continue to have a hybrid contract as have been getting a better salary than other teaching staff. They ,therefore want to reduce my salary by £4000 (1.0) per annum. After recent job cuts I am now the only member of staff on a hybrid contract and my manager and other coordinators who also had hybrid contracts have left. I thought it was illegal to have salaries cut while on Maternity leave.

The current HR manager states: "I am aware in the second e-mail of the copy of your letter, which all employees on non-teaching pay and conditions received, to indicate the move to the main salary structure. It was sent to you because your salary was listed on Range 9 etc (i.e. Non-teaching)- an agreement made by your manager and my predecessor which appeared to recognise that your role was non-teaching-hence the letter.

However your holiday entitlement in your Managers and my predecessor agreement was left on the terms in place for Teaching staff. Thus in my opinion, and Union the situation is untenable as it is a hybrid set of terms and conditions; staff in the service must be on one set or the other - hence management and Union agreement to rectify this situation.

To do this us and the union have agreed that, as your role includes a significant element of teaching, that teaching terms and conditions apply to your situation and should be used to rectify the position you find yourself in. The holiday entitlement and salary are the correct terms for a member of the teaching staff such as you. In our view you cannot remain on a "hybrid" set of terms and conditions and salary structure. I accept that the salary placement (at the top of the current Coordinator scale) is less, but in my view you have benefited in the past.

I have asked, in the light of the points listed above that you return from Maternity Leave on teaching terms and salary. I have asked for your record on Broadband arrangements to be removed as your role has a significant element of teaching per above. Accordingly your re-instatement to payroll will be on the aforementioned teaching salary and terms and conditions."

Please note I have not received any information about this from the Union but I find they are not very helpful. Any advice would be very much appreciated

[sarahbanshee]

I don't believe your employers can change your terms and conditions without your consent - so you need to reply and say this constitutes a change to my terms and conditions of employment, to which I do not consent, and so I will be returning to work on my current terms and conditions including my current salary.

[flowery]

I agree with Sarah. I would write and say that you do not consent to the proposed change to your terms and conditions, and I would also add that you would like to express your disappointment that at no point have you been consulted about this proposed change ( assuming that is the case, which it sounds like from your post).