Please note that this article was written some time ago. As such, the guidance and/or terms and conditions referred to here and/or the law or supporting case law may have changed since then and the guidance the PDA would offer may now be different to that which is written here. This article should not now be relied upon as a source of legal or other advice – PDA members should contact the PDA for up-to-date advice on such issues. The article is included here for illustrative purposes.
The PDA Union has recently issued the following guidance to members employed by the Co-op Pharmacy:
“Following our News Report on 18th February 2011, we can advise that we have approached the Co-operative Human Resources department and NACO in an attempt to discuss our concerns on behalf of our members. At the time of writing the Co-operative has merely acknowledged receipt of our correspondence.
We have since learned that the Co-operative has clarified its position in a “Critical Update” on 22nd February, According to your employer, the amendments have been included to protect your position. Your employer contends that it is purely complying with its obligations under the Working Time Regulations (ensuring that you do not work over 48 hours per week etc) and that it wants to ensure that employees do not find themselves in a potential conflict of interest.
Our view is that this amendment is not in your interests at all and that your employer’s explanation is entirely disingenuous. The original clause which essentially stipulated that consent of your employer had to be sought and would not have been unreasonably withheld, allows your employer to monitor your working hours. Compliance with the Working Time Regulations is therefore possible without amending the clause further.
The original clause is also sufficient to ensure that employees do not find themselves in a potential conflict of interest, as the Co-operative could simply refuse you permission to work elsewhere if they believe a conflict exists.
The real reason the Co-operative want to make the changes is very simple and it is a case of they as a business wishing to protect their business interests. This is of course entirely understandable however, in doing so they should not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect their interests. In our opinion, changing the clause to prevent you from working elsewhere altogether is a step too far and is something you should most definitely object to.
With this in mind, we suggest that you complain in writing to Human Resources and that you do not sign the web form as although you are stating that you have read and understood these changes, it might be argued that by signing the document you have accepted them.
We can reveal from the feedback we have received that employees appear not to have been consulted regarding the changes and it may therefore be possible to submit a group grievance on the basis that there has been a lack of consultation. In order to have the greatest impact it is important for as many Coop pharmacists to support this approach. If you wish the PDA Union to explore a group grievance further, please email your agreement to enquiries@pda-union.org “