Reduced hours raised eyebrows

After almost 22 years of employment, a medical secretary was notified that her hours would be reduced from 30 to 20 per week. Two years earlier, she had already agreed with the medical clinic she worked for that her hours would be reduced from 37 to 30 per week.

The company justified the reduced working hours with reference to a restructuring process. According to the company, the employee did not have a flair for the digital and technical aspects of the administrative tasks. As the first reduction of working hours two years back had not solved the issue, the company sought the help of a mediator. It only decided after this process that in the future, the tasks would be shared between two functions and therefore, the employee would have her working time reduced to 20 hours per week.

As a result, the company then proceeded to make a job advertisement for a part-time secretary. The intention was that the employee would continue working on a reduced hourly basis and only deal with service at the reception and on the phone. However, when she refused to work on a reduced hourly basis and considered herself terminated, the company changed the job advertisement to a full-time position.

Business decision was not set aside 

The judge found that reducing the employee’s working hours was lawful. This was because the company’s assessment of the need to strengthen and improve the secretarial function via the restructuring process was justified in the company’s operations.

More specifically, it was considered necessary to strengthen and improve the secretarial function, and it was the company’s assessment of what measures were needed to make it work. There was no basis for setting aside the company’s assessment of the need to share the tasks between two part-time secretaries. It did not play a role that the company subsequently changed the job advertisement to a full-time position.

IUNO’s opinion

This case is specific due to the individual circumstances but shows how a business decision can justify the introduction of substantial changes. Moreover, the case shows that companies can justify material changes to the terms and conditions of employment to optimize operations.

IUNO recommends that companies ensure that there is an actual need to begin a restructuring process and that the changes are necessary to achieve the desired result. Additionally, companies should ensure that there are policies in place for termination procedures or changes in terms and conditions in the event of a restructuring.

[The Danish Board of Dismissals judgment of 21 March 2023 in case 20220872]