"Terms of Employment Act, 1994", changes to an employee's contract of emp.:email ok?

Omega

Registered User
Messages
317
Under the "Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994", changes to an employee's employment contract must be notified in writing. In this context, is an e-mail sufficient or must a letter be furnished? Thanks. :confused:
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

AFAIK, email is not considered "written communication", although I have no info to back this up.
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

Some changes to a contract of employment don't need consent of both parties. If changes have been made as a result of e.g. a company moving offices (so your place of employment has changed) or if a collective agreement has changed the nature of remuneration, holidays etc. and that collective agreement applies to you, then the company wouldn't need your actual consent to make the changes. In that case, although email isn't considered "written confirmation" officially, I highly doubt if it would be thrown out as unenforceable - sure all they'd need to do is print a copy off and hand it to you.

If the company was trying to change your terms of employment outside of circumstances like those outlined above, then you would normally have to countersign your agreement to the changes. That said, if you emailed back agreeing to changes, then you'd have a hard time saying that you didn't mean to agree.

So without knowing the nature of the change that has applied (or that your company is trying to apply), it's impossible to say if the email notice is enforceable or not.

Sprite
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

AFAIK, email is not considered "written communication", although I have no info to back this up.

Joe1234 effectively gives email the same status as hard copy

Section 9 of the Electronic Commerce Act 200o reads as follows:-

Legal Recognition of Electronic Communications and Information in Electronic Form
Electronic form not to affect legal validity or enforceability.
9.—Information (including information incorporated by reference) shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is wholly or partly in electronic form, whether as an electronic communication or otherwise.
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

Previous post should read:-

Joe1234

The law effectively gives email the same status as hard copy

Section 9 of the Electronic Commerce Act 200o reads as follows:-

Legal Recognition of Electronic Communications and Information in Electronic Form
Electronic form not to affect legal validity or enforceability.
9.—Information (including information incorporated by reference) shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is wholly or partly in electronic form, whether as an electronic communication or otherwise.
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

Thanks Gulliver.

Really, the OP's problem boils down to whether there was a change that required his/her consent or whether there was a change that could, in any case, be implemented unilaterally by the company. The electronic nature of the communication appears to be a red herring...

Sprite
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

Thanks Gulliver. I never knew that. I stand corrected.
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

Sorry, Sprite, the OPs question was not about consent. It read "In this context, is an e-mail sufficient or must a letter be furnished?" Clearly the question was whether email differed legally from a paper letter.

Two respondents, (yourself included) suggested that "email isn't considered "written confirmation" officially" ... your words

The legal position is that email has a status similar to a paper letter
 
Re: E-mail notification OK?

I was making some assumptions - which may or may not be correct. I imagine (without knowing) that the OP has been given a communication by email that s/he doesn't like and is questioning its enforceability. That communication relates to a change in the terms of employment. There are circs in which consent is necessary to make any change valid and that's why I brought up the issue of consent - it may be totally irrelevant to OP's post, granted.

I suspect that consent is relevant (to OP) - not all terms of employment can be changed by mere notice. OP's statement that "Under the "Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994", changes to an employee's employment contract must be notified in writing" implies (to me) that OP thinks that *only* notice is required to change any term, which is not the case. OP might clarify if his/her question relates to the enforceability of a particular change to an employment contract or if the question was really "where notice only is required to change a term, is electronic notice sufficient?" If the latter, then your post answers that 100%.

Sprite
 
Re: "Terms of Employment Act, 1994", changes to an employee's contract of emp.:email

Many Thanks for all the comments.....
The proposed changes actually relate to working hours - see thread:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=93436
I received this notification via an e-mail and I was wondering if this is a valid form of communication or can I insist on a letter?
P.S. What does "OP" mean? Thanks again.....
 
Re: "Terms of Employment Act, 1994", changes to an employee's contract of emp.:email

"OP" means "Original Poster"

The point isn't really whether you can/should insist on a letter, but whether the employer can make this change unilaterally and without your consent. From the post you linked to, the company is seeking to make two changes to your terms of employment: (i) change in working hours and (ii) requiring you to be on call.

Does your contract of employment have a section saying that the company may require you to work different/additional hours as necessary/reasonable? (Normally they do) If it does, then I'd imagine that a change of an hour either way would probably be considered reasonable. The "requirement" to be on call would, to my mind, be a less reasonable change and would be more likely to require your consent, even if they offer more money for you to take on that additional responsibility.

When you went to flexitime, was that arrangement agreed in writing or did you just change over to flexitime without additional/different terms? If not, then your original contract would govern (9-5.30) and it would be difficult to refuse a non-agreed change on the one hand (moving to 8-16.30) but yet insist on a non-written agreement on the other hand (flexitime).

It's a delicate balancing act as your employer is probably introducing these changes to better run their business and doesn't appear to be targetting you specifically. As you have been there longer than a year, they cannot simply terminate you for questioning the changes. Rather than insist on the changes being put in a letter (which won't make any difference), if you have good reasons not to agree to the changes, I'd bring that up with your employer/HR and see what they say. I'd take the position that any of these changes do require your agreement and outline why you don't want to agree and offer to discuss alternative arrangements (e.g. you could work from home from 8am and then come into the office?). I'd also leave room in the conversation to accept the changed conditions in the end - if the employer is dead set on implementing these new conditions and you are dead set against them, things will get difficult for both of you and, although you may be in the right from a legal point of view, if they orchestrated a dismissal out of it, you might be left with an award in court, but no job afterwards...
 
Re: "Terms of Employment Act, 1994", changes to an employee's contract of emp.:email

.....thanks for the sobering thoughts.....
 
Re: "Terms of Employment Act, 1994", changes to an employee's contract of emp.:email

Sorry! Good luck with it

Sprite
 
Back
Top