Can my employer force me to wear a bike helmet on my commute

[pete75]

Consider your blanket statement
"

I'd look for another job because a company seems likely to fail sooner or later if it's run by a fool who believes in magic hats despite all evidence.

". That implies anyone who believes in cycle helmets is a fool unable to run a business. Like all blanket statements, disprovable by one counter example. However as you're so keen on evidence to prove a probability please provide whatever evidence you have to back up your claim.

[thirdcrank]

Mention of Baron Sugar highlights the expression "You're fired" and that's a key phrase in answer to the OP.

Anybody in paid employment has a contract of employment which starts when the employer say "You're hired." It's not a written document - although parts of it must be in writing - and it contains all sorts of things by implication. It's also often a changing contract. Ultimately, the only way an employer can try to force anybody to do anything is to say it's part of their employment contract and they'll be disciplined if they break that contract as in "You're fired." Although the main conditions of a contract of employment cover what's done "in the firm's time" that's not exclusive.

Negotiation is better than confrontation and proper advice is better than what you might normally get on social media.

[Vorpal]

Mention of Baron Sugar highlights the expression "You're fired" and that's a key phrase in answer to the OP.

Anybody in paid employment has a contract of employment which starts when the employer say "You're hired." It's not a written document - although parts of it must be in writing - and it contains all sorts of things by implication. It's also often a changing contract. Ultimately, the only way an employer can try to force anybody to do anything is to say it's part of their employment contract and they'll be disciplined if they break that contract as in "You're fired." Although the main conditions of a contract of employment cover what's done "in the firm's time" that's not exclusive.

That a good point, however, there is still a limit to what an employer can demand of an employee outside of working hours. Contracts should define the working hours and place of work, and outside of those, the employer has limited rights to define employees' time & activities as long as they turn up on-time and fit to work.

I would think that someone dismissed in such circumstances would have a strong case for unfair dismissal. Of course that may not be much help, if it means being some months without pay, possible legal costs, etc.

Negotiation is better than confrontation and proper advice is better than what you might normally get on social media.

Almost always good advice.

[The utility cyclist]

From ACAS "If you impose a new contract unilaterally you will be in breach of contract" so no they can't just change it without you agreeing and if in itself has no bearing on your performance/ability to do your job you can rightly twell them to get stuffed in as polite a way as possible.
They haven't got a leg to stand on frankly if the OP or anyone stands their ground.

[Vorpal]

From ACAS "If you impose a new contract unilaterally you will be in breach of contract" so no they can't just change it without you agreeing and if in itself has no bearing on your performance/ability to do your job you can rightly twell them to get stuffed in as polite a way as possible.
They haven't got a leg to stand on frankly if the OP or anyone stands their ground.

Many contracts are quite vague, and many employees have been pressured into waiving their rights as defined in the working time directive. So, it's not necessarily so clear cut as all that.

[thirdcrank]

We can count angels dancing on pinheads here but employment contracts change frequently. No enterprise could operate if every change or deviation from the norm involved formal negotiation. I'm pretty sure that if something is introduced and accepted without demur, it's not unilateral in that there's implied consent. An employee certainly can't go along with change then decide months or years down the line that they didn't agree.

Anyway, based on not very much info from the OP we've had a lot of steaming nostrils and heat under the collar, much of which is because it's a helmet thread.

[The utility cyclist]

We can count angels dancing on pinheads here but employment contracts change frequently. No enterprise could operate if every change or deviation from the norm involved formal negotiation. I'm pretty sure that if something is introduced and accepted without demur, it's not unilateral in that there's implied consent. An employee certainly can't go along with change then decide months or years down the line that they didn't agree.

Anyway, based on not very much info from the OP we've had a lot of steaming nostrils and heat under the collar, much of which is because it's a helmet thread.

Much of which because it is an unfair/discriminative act by the employer, that the actual topic is related to a cycle helmet is irrelevent unless you're all for applying contract terms on some of your employees but not others that break their human rights, puts them into a worse situation than before from a safety POV (demonstrably proven) and so on.

[thirdcrank]

I think my point is made. With or without the rolling eyes.

[reohn2]

I really cannot see how any employer has even the right to discuss what their employee does outside working hours if it doesn't interfere with their work,any talk of negotiation of such matters is a no go area for employers they have no rights over their workforce on such matters

[thirdcrank]

I've found this link with some explanations of how conduct when "clocked off" may be considered a breach of contract. No cycling helmet cases mentioned but one about a an employee injuring another road user in a "road rage episode" and getting his name in the media.

Behaving badly when not at work

https://duncancotterill.com/publication ... ot-at-work

( When I checked their credentials they are in New Zealand although I think the principles still apply. There are other similar links but I liked the road rage example.)
===========================================================================
PS edit to add
My reason for thinking the same principles apply is that this area of the law isn't defined by statute: it's the Common Law ie based on precedent. Some Commonwealth countries' legal systems are still associated (not sure that's the best word) with the ours.

[mjr]

Consider your blanket statement
"

I'd look for another job because a company seems likely to fail sooner or later if it's run by a fool who believes in magic hats despite all evidence.

". That implies anyone who believes in cycle helmets is a fool unable to run a business. Like all blanket statements, disprovable by one counter example. However as you're so keen on evidence to prove a probability please provide whatever evidence you have to back up your claim.

I did. Now you consider the inclusion of "seems likely" to understand how it's both probabilistic and opinion, so one counterexample doesn't disprove it.

Also, you cut out the part where I said I'd try to reason with them first and only consider them fools if they remain die-hard (excuse the pun!) helmet users if they cling to that belief in magic hats in the face of evidence.

[pete75]

Consider your blanket statement
"

I'd look for another job because a company seems likely to fail sooner or later if it's run by a fool who believes in magic hats despite all evidence.

". That implies anyone who believes in cycle helmets is a fool unable to run a business. Like all blanket statements, disprovable by one counter example. However as you're so keen on evidence to prove a probability please provide whatever evidence you have to back up your claim.

I did. Now you consider the inclusion of "seems likely" to understand how it's both probabilistic and opinion, so one counterexample doesn't disprove it.

Also, you cut out the part where I said I'd try to reason with them first and only consider them fools if they remain die-hard (excuse the pun!) helmet users if they cling to that belief in magic hats in the face of evidence.

I doubt if someone running a business would waste time arguing with you about the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets nor would I imagine they'd be overly bothered if the likes of you regarded them a fool.

It's you who is making the quite sweeping statement that someone who believes cycle helmets are an aid to safety is a fool whose business will fail so it's up to you to provide evidence other than your own opinion and/or pedantry to back it up.

[pete75]

Mention of Baron Sugar highlights the expression "You're fired" and that's a key phrase in answer to the OP.

Anybody in paid employment has a contract of employment which starts when the employer say "You're hired." It's not a written document - although parts of it must be in writing - and it contains all sorts of things by implication. It's also often a changing contract. Ultimately, the only way an employer can try to force anybody to do anything is to say it's part of their employment contract and they'll be disciplined if they break that contract as in "You're fired." Although the main conditions of a contract of employment cover what's done "in the firm's time" that's not exclusive.

Negotiation is better than confrontation and proper advice is better than what you might normally get on social media.

If someone is clearly identified as an employee of X Ltd and do something in their own time which could bring the firm into disrepute they can be disciplined up to and including dismissal. Not wearing a cycle helmet when riding to work hardly falls into that category.

[mjr]

It's you who is making the quite sweeping statement that someone who believes cycle helmets are an aid to safety is a fool whose business will fail so it's up to you to provide evidence other than your own opinion and/or pedantry to back it up.

That's your rewriting, not a statement I made.

[Vorpal]

If someone is clearly identified as an employee of X Ltd and do something in their own time which could bring the firm into disrepute they can be disciplined up to and including dismissal. Not wearing a cycle helmet when riding to work hardly falls into that category.

I don't see how a failure to wear a plastic hat can bring a firm into disrepute, unless the OP works for a cycle helmet manufacturer.