This is a charity, not a charity!

This is a charity, not a charity!
Expert advice

This is a charity, not a charity!

Governance | Tesse Akpeki | 1 Mar 2008

Lucy McLynn and Tesse Akpeki respond to an anxious new trustee flabbergasted at the generosity of a cash-strapped charity's employment terms.

Dear editor,

I am a new trustee and have just discovered that the staff has extremely generous terms and conditions of employment. Each year staff are entitled to 25 days holiday; three extra days at Christmas, an extra day's holiday for each of the remaining bank holidays; time off in lieu which is not monitored; 15 days study leave although no one checks that they are studying for a qualification; up to 15 days for childcare each year; very generous sick leave; health insurance paid for by the charity; and every five years an employee is entitled to a three-month full-time sabbatical or a six-month part-time sabbatical. Not surprisingly, employees tend to stay a long time.

I do not feel we can justify such generous employment terms especially as we have ongoing serious financial difficulties. I am told that the charity has tried to move to less generous terms but has not been successful so no one wants to try again.

What is my position and that of my fellow trustees if we do nothing?

Yours sincerely,

A concerned new trustee

Dear concerned new trustee,

As the charity is in serious financial difficulties, clearly the trustees need to take steps to reduce expenditure. It is advisable that the board thinks about whether they do this through changing contractual terms, with the related problems, or some other route, eg redundancies. The board must seek advice from a specialist employment lawyer.

Certainly the first step would be to start to monitor ‘time off in lieu’ and study leave more closely, and change the contracts for new employees. Employers are often unhappy to think of having staff on different contractual terms, and think that this may be unfair or discriminatory, but it is not a problem legally, as long as the new position is applied absolutely consistently to all new employees, and the fact that the charity has decided to make this change is documented in board minutes, etc.

Changing the terms for existing staff is problematic. They are clearly unlikely to agree to these changes voluntarily, although perhaps a discussion making it clear that redundancies are the other alternative might focus their minds to some extent.

If the charity cannot get consent to make changes then they would have to alter the contracts by way of terminating the contracts giving the appropriate notice in each case, and offering re-engagement immediately after expiry of the old contracts on the new terms, with continuity of employment preserved.

The problem with this, of course, is that it is a dismissal and is likely to be unfair. The charity would have to be able to rely on ‘some other substantial reason’ – and would need to show cogent evidence of serious financial difficulty, and having considered other options, in consultation with staff. Tribunals take a very dim view of employers altering employees’ terms of employment, particularly when it leaves them less well-off. They would, understandably, take the view that the charity should never have entered into contracts on this basis in the first place if it could not afford to honour the terms.

The charity would also have to show that they had gone through a fair procedure, which would involve following the statutory dismissal procedure.

The issues and related questions need to form a substantive part of the board’s deliberation. Trustees need to consider the merits of different options (advantages, disadvantages and risks) and the views of their professional advisers (employment law specialists and auditors). A written record of these deliberations, professional advice taken and conclusions reached with reasons must be kept.

With the charity in serious financial difficulties, doing nothing could leave trustees in ‘breach of trust’ and personally liable.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy McLynn is partner of Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP.

Tesse Akpeki is a consultant for OnBoard


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

How to make your values drive what you do

2 Jul 2015

Your values should define your behaviour in the present and your culture in the future, writes Helen Fraser...

Charting sector trends: key lessons from the UK Civil Society Almanac

26 Jun 2015

The UK Civil Society Almanac shows that sector income fell again last year following a drop in government...

The accidental aid-worker

19 Jun 2015

Barbara Frost, chief executive of WaterAid for the last ten years, was honoured with the first-ever eponymously...

Moira Sinclair: The Paul Hamlyn Foundation needs to stay relevant

22 Jun 2015

Today the Paul Hamlyn Foundation unveiled its new strategy. Its chief executive, Moira Sinclair, tells...

The accidental aid-worker

19 Jun 2015

Barbara Frost, chief executive of WaterAid for the last ten years, was honoured with the first-ever eponymously...

Will the FRSB's recommendations damage fundraising?

10 Jun 2015

Yesterday the FRSB produced a report calling for stringent new restrictions on fundraisers, which will...

Paying the price of poor data management: how to avoid falling foul of the Data Protection Act

29 Jun 2015

Charities are still failing to sufficiently protect personal data, with breaches more than doubling over...

The accidental aid-worker

19 Jun 2015

Barbara Frost, chief executive of WaterAid for the last ten years, was honoured with the first-ever eponymously...

New websites for Action for Children, Care International and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

1 Jun 2015

Kirsty Weakley looks at how Action for Children, Care International and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation...

Join the discussion


Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.

>> Find out more <<