|
|
Post by happybunny on Aug 7, 2008 15:26:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2008 17:23:51 GMT
there's all these office bods floating about today in hivis at ricky trying to show a 'presence'
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 7, 2008 17:27:03 GMT
If it says in their contract that they can be moved to a different station, and since they have accepted their contract, they can't really turn around and refuse to move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2008 19:05:32 GMT
Interesting choice of photo given that the story is about the Metropolitan line!
|
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Aug 8, 2008 4:29:56 GMT
I was going to say that jenks... TC I agree with you to some degree. This is fair enough when they first join LUL... but when they have been working somewhere for some amount of time it is very unfair. Imagine if someone joined LUL who lived at Uxbridge, they were offered a job at Uxbridge station on the platforms, or barrier. Then after 2 years of happy trouble-free working .. LUL announced they are moving them to Epping! Which as you stated in the contract they could do... but it is out of order!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 8, 2008 5:32:22 GMT
I didn't say I thought it was entirely right or ethical - just that they could. I would have assumed that when doing such things they try as much as possible to keep people at one location. Unfortunately, ultimately they can move people if it says so in their contract. Of course, if the unions think that is unfair, then they should take action against that clause. Perhaps it should be revised to say people could be moved, but only within an area which won't affect them?
|
|
