Stuck on Reception...

[techtopia]

Fraid not, that clause has been shown at various tribunals to mean 'in emergency' and the like. ie. if the school is missing half its staff and needs a cover person, it is reasonable for them to ask you to do that. Manning a reception desk during a period of time that always occurs, every year? That is poor planning by the school.

 

Can you cite these tribunal outcomes please as I disagree with your "fraid not" sentiment.

 

Indeed, contract 'law' would seem to indicate that so called implied terms in contracts means an employee can be asked to undertake any reasonable request of work by the employer [source]. In fact, despite a lengthy search on the matter, all I could find was that such terms in a contract were perfectly legal and acceptable. I found nothing which would corroborate your sentiment.

 

Of course, define "reasonable".

 

I attempted this with my previous example. Thus, IMHO, it would be reasonable to ask someone who ordinarily sits at a desk, with a computer, to sit at a desk, with a computer but to also answer the phone and greet people 'just for today'. It would not be reasonable to ask them to clear blocked drains due to the nature of that type of work, nor would it be reasonable for them to carry out Receptionist duties on a regular long-term basis if they are not directly employed as such.

 

I can understand where regular occurrences of such requests would come into play (i.e. doing someone else's job on a regular basis, not once a year for a solitary day) it could be seen as both unreasonable and unacceptable and a change to the usual terms and conditions of employment, but this would appear to be a one off event. Regular occurrences would suggest either a new position is created or an amendment to existing job roles (and subsequent contracts) is undertaken.

 

Schools (where the usual employees who do a job are away during school closures) are prime examples of where this is both practical and, in the current economic climate, common sense.

 

Not bad planning in my opinion, quite the opposite; and quite reasonable and fair too.

 

I was merely inviting the OP to check his/her contract prior to refusing to carry out a reasonable task, as they may well find themselves subject to disciplinary action if they "laughed and refused".

Edited August 24, 2010 by techtopia

[localzuk]

Can you cite these tribunal outcomes please as I disagree with your "fraid not" sentiment.

 

I'll try and find the info - a friend had it as printed documents for a tribunal he was going into.

 

I can understand where regular occurrences of such requests would come into play (i.e. doing someone else's job on a regular basis) it could be seen as both unreasonable and unacceptable and a change to the usual terms and conditions of employment, but this would appear to be a one off event. Regular occurrences would suggest either a new position is created or an amendment to existing job roles (and subsequent contracts) is undertaken.

 

Ah, this is where we differ - I don't see it as a one off. Why would the school do something different this summer than any other summer? (I think this is the crux of the difference of our opinion).

 

Not bad planning in my opinion, quite the opposite; and quite reasonable and fair too.

 

Neither reasonable or fair IMO. I am employed as a network manager. That involves a list of specific tasks in my job description, and the aforementioned 'reasonable request' clause. The clause doesn't mean 'we can tack on a task simply because, due to poor budgeting, we decided not to pay to cover the reception desk for 6 weeks'. What next, they decide that they're not going to have cleaners, and tack on that all support staff have to take turns cleaning the toilets? Why would that task be unreasonable, but manning a completely unrelated office isn't?

[techtopia]

Ah, this is where we differ - I don't see it as a one off. Why would the school do something different this summer than any other summer? (I think this is the crux of the difference of our opinion).

 

 

I am not here to discuss what this school does or does not do, I was offering advice to the OP to not simply refuse a reasonable request without checking his Contract of Employment. If it does indeed contain such a clause, he may find himself the subject of disciplinary action should he choose to refuse the carry out the task.

 

 

Neither reasonable or fair IMO. I am employed as a network manager. That involves a list of specific tasks in my job description, and the aforementioned 'reasonable request' clause. The clause doesn't mean 'we can tack on a task simply because, due to poor budgeting, we decided not to pay to cover the reception desk for 6 weeks'. What next, they decide that they're not going to have cleaners, and tack on that all support staff have to take turns cleaning the toilets? Why would that task be unreasonable, but manning a completely unrelated office isn't?

AIUI, this request was for one day, not the entire school closure? 1 day a year, expected or otherwise is hardly regular even if it is repetitive. I disagree that it is unfair or unreasonable to ask an employee to carry out a similar duty to their own on that basis.

 

With that in mind, an employee and employer can both decide if the request is reasonable or not, however your suggestion that you would be asked to clean toilets when employed as a Network Manager is quite clearly ludicrous, as it is to expect anyone not specifically employed as a cleaner. It is very dissimilar to your own job and in actual fact requires the use of COSSH materials which you could quite clearly refuse to handle. By the same token, I would not consider it proper to expect a cleaner to have to man a Reception Desk, as again, it is dissimilar to their day to day role as they possibly don't have appropriate experience in the telephone or computer systems.

 

However, such a clause in a contract does not mean you have to carry out the task, it means you may be asked to do so, and if deemed reasonable by both parties, you would be expected to perform such a task. You also need to remember that you accepted that clause when taking up the offer of employment and you should have raised doubts as to what might be expected of you at the time. It isn't an unfair term, so it isn't illegal.

 

Little doubt there are employers out there who capitalise on such a clause.

 

If your employer decided that they weren't going to have cleaners, and that you would now be employed into that role in conjunction with your current one, then yes, any employer could amend your contract accordingly, but that is a different matter altogether.

Edited August 24, 2010 by techtopia

[SteveBentley]

Amusingly when my JD was last updated, that clause was omitted (accidentally, I'm sure). Which is an interesting card to have up your sleeve!

[Sylv3r]

We have sufficient admin staff on whole time contacts (5) who arrange their holidays between them so the office is always (wo)manned.

 

The number of phone calls, visitors, worklmen, deliveries etc we get even during the holidays keeps them busy.

[CAM]

I wouldn't say doing other jobs is a bad thing. It helped me realise my big skill is flexibility and picking up new skills quickly. My current role as assistant to our data manager came from creating marksheets in SIMS whilst doing a stint in our school library employed as a tech. And I prefer this role.

[BaccyNet]

I've been asked to do this once since I worked here, but that was a long time ago!

We have the signing in book on Reception for contractors and the phone system gets checked for messages at least once a day by any admin staff that were in the building. There have been days when no admin staff are in so I check the messages when I can just in case there is anything urgent (hasn't been so far!) but I've never been asked to do this.

 

Being on reception on the holidays would be OK'ish (after a bit of discussion with various people in the building!) but I wouldn't do it during term-time, already get complaints when I leave the office for the toilet!!!