Employment law

[Saint_clark]

Does anyone have a link for a simple (preferably point by point) guide to exactly what an employer is required by law to provide for their employees? I have tried google, before anyone asks.
I would go to a solicitor but I don't actually have a complaint to make yet, as I want to make sure I know everything my employer is doing wrong before I take it any further.

[Thedelldays]

what s your beef

[Johnny Bognor]

Exactly, what's your beef?

Do you have one or are you just trying to pick a fight with your employer?

[Saint_clark]

It's a collection of things, e.g, not giving me a contract of employment despite me being a full time member of staff, not giving any sick pay, not having a pension scheme in place.
As I said, i'm certain there are a fair few more things that they are doing wrong, and I want to identify all of them before I take things any further.

[Saint_clark]

Also, I work around food and I know for a fact that in the shop I work in (my employer owns several) not a single person has a food hygiene certificate or a work related first aid qualification.

[Benj540]

It's a collection of things, e.g, not giving me a contract of employment despite me being a full time member of staff, not giving any sick pay, not having a pension scheme in place.
As I said, i'm certain there are a fair few more things that they are doing wrong, and I want to identify all of them before I take things any further.

Not 100% sure on this but I do believe from your effective start date as a new employee on a contract, you should be issued with a contract of employment within 8 weeks i.e. statement of particulars and other entitlements and regulations you must follow in your job. For example we issue a code of conduct, annual leave statements and information on sick pay. If your contract has changed for any reason for example; hours change. A variation to contract should be issued within 4 weeks from effective date. Unless this variation drastically changes the role you perform, then a new statement of particulars and terms would need to be issued.

As you have not received a contract of employment is it worth checking that you are definitely not a 'casual' employee. You work when required may even be regularly but if you are a casual employee there is no obligation to work for you and no obligation for your employer to provide work to you.

As stated above not 100% sure on this but that seems to be how it works where I work.

[Weston Super Saint]

Also, I work around food and I know for a fact that in the shop I work in (my employer owns several) not a single person has a food hygiene certificate or a work related first aid qualification.

Make a confidential call to the Environmetal Health Department will sort that one out.

As for everything else, it should be in your contract of employment ;)

Since you don't have one, have you tried asking your employer for one? Even a casual employee will have a contract stating they are a casual employee.

It may be the case that your employer has got a contract for you - although this should be signed by you!!! - but is keeping it safe on file somewhere so it doesn't get lost.

If all else fails, why not find another job?

Oh, and if you have less than 12 months continuos employment, you have very few 'rights' in the eyes of the law anyway.

[Rattlehead]

I expected better of McDonald's.

[bridge too far]

I, too, have never been issued with a Contract of Employment - after 5 years! Pretty poor form for an Audit practice don't you think? However, Terms and Conditions are 'implied' if the employer pays and the employee accepts the payments.

Also, I'm being paid up to 6 weeks late (with no advance warning of this).

I'm suing my employer for Constructive Dismissal - seeking 3 months' pay in lieu of notice as this notice period was 'implied'.

So far, the solicitor's advice has cost me £200. Hope that helps - good luck!

[Saint Keith]

It's a collection of things, e.g, not giving me a contract of employment despite me being a full time member of staff, not giving any sick pay, not having a pension scheme in place.
As I said, i'm certain there are a fair few more things that they are doing wrong, and I want to identify all of them before I take things any further.

they are not obliged to pay sick pay or run a pension scheme

you are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay if you are off sick, but they can choose to make you claim this directly from the government. they are not obliged to pay you any more than that minimum. they are also not obliged to offer you any pension arrangemtns

[Saint_clark]

Make a confidential call to the Environmetal Health Department will sort that one out.

As for everything else, it should be in your contract of employment ;)

Since you don't have one, have you tried asking your employer for one? Even a casual employee will have a contract stating they are a casual employee.

It may be the case that your employer has got a contract for you - although this should be signed by you!!! - but is keeping it safe on file somewhere so it doesn't get lost.

If all else fails, why not find another job?

Oh, and if you have less than 12 months continuos employment, you have very few 'rights' in the eyes of the law anyway.

Cheers, that was helpful.
I've looked into it and i'm pretty sure i'm not a casual employee, but not 100%.
And as for the last point, i've been working there for 13 months now.

[Saint_clark]

I expected better of McDonald's.

Hilarious.

[Johnny Bognor]

they are not obliged to pay sick pay or run a pension scheme

you are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay if you are off sick, but they can choose to make you claim this directly from the government. they are not obliged to pay you any more than that minimum. they are also not obliged to offer you any pension arrangemtns

If you have more than 5 employees you have to have a stakeholder pension scheme in place which allows employees to contribute.

You're right about Stat Sick pay, however this only kicks in after 3 working days which means most people who throw sickies get **** all
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_10018786

Here is as concise an overview as you are going to get....
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/index.htm



My view is, rather than challenge a crap employer, leave and take your services elsewhere.

[Master Bates]

It's a collection of things, e.g, not giving me a contract of employment despite me being a full time member of staff, not giving any sick pay, not having a pension scheme in place.
As I said, i'm certain there are a fair few more things that they are doing wrong, and I want to identify all of them before I take things any further.

Do you work in the same company as me?

[thesaint sfc]

Not having a work contract is swings and roundabouts really. Remember you can walk out of the job whenever you want without a contract!

[thesaint sfc]

Do you work in the same company as me?

and me. I never intended to work here for as long as I have done so it's never bothered me.

[bridge too far]

Not having a work contract is swings and roundabouts really. Remember you can walk out of the job whenever you want without a contract!

Well, that's what I thought too. But my solicitor tells me that, at the very minimum, you have to give one week's notice for every year of service up to the period 'implied' by your non-existent contract. By accepting your wages every week / month, you are accepting this 'implied' contract.

In my case, it was verbally agreed that the Ts & Cs in force when I transferred from th NHS would be carried over. So this meant giving 3 months' notice by either side.

However, it would probably cost your employer too much to pursue you for the notice period. The worst he could do would be to withold any salary due to you. So walk out on the day you get paid.

[hamster]

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1461

ACAS are not a bad source of employment 'good practice', and are well respected by employers and TU's alike.

If you decide to go down the industrial tribunal route I could recomend the services of SARC, Pete Jenks helped me a few years back and they work on donations so a sort of genuine coscience based 'No Win No Fee' set up, contact them here:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/employment/employmenttraining/sites/sitesemployment/sarc.asp

btf, have you left yet? I thought you had to actually leave to claim constructive dismissal. If so good luck with finding something else.

[Saint_clark]

Do you work in the same company as me?

Afraid not, it's a chain of shops around Dorset.

[bridge too far]

...............

btf, have you left yet? I thought you had to actually leave to claim constructive dismissal. If so good luck with finding something else.

I haven't formally left, Hamster. I have issued proceedings and just haven't been in to work. I'm to expect a response on Monday apparently (together with the P60s and wage slips that have not been supplied for 2 years).

I've had a couple of interviews but haven't been successful, mainly I think because I was considered over-qualified with too much experience. Apparently I've interviewed well but, in each case, there were concerns that I'd get bored quickly / try to take over the new employer's job LOL.

I was advised that my claim would fall if I got another job and gave notice.

I'm only looking for 3 days a week now as I look after my grandchildren for 2 days a week - that doesn't help really.

Thanks for your good wishes :)

[Saint_clark]

If you have more than 5 employees you have to have a stakeholder pension scheme in place which allows employees to contribute.

You're right about Stat Sick pay, however this only kicks in after 3 working days which means most people who throw sickies get **** all
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_10018786

Here is as concise an overview as you are going to get....
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/index.htm



My view is, rather than challenge a crap employer, leave and take your services elsewhere.


I was going to go ahead with this, but i've decided he's made money in spite of himself for long enough. I've been merrily working 50-60 hours a week on minimum wage with, as i've said, no pension scheme, no sick pay, and terrible, terrible holiday pay. He's happy to let me carry on rather than hire someone else and cost himself money on tax etc.
I'm sick of being exploited, and I don't particularly want anybody else to be in my position.

And yes, he has far more than 5 employees - round about 40-50 I would of said.

[Saint_clark]

Not having a work contract is swings and roundabouts really. Remember you can walk out of the job whenever you want without a contract!

I do enjoy what I do though. I don't particularly want to leave, but i'm not going to sit back and be taken for a ride either.

[Saint_clark]

Another example of a colossal mistake on his part. My former manager at the shop slipped on a step and injured his back, meaning he had to take 2 weeks off and was in considerable pain for a while afterwards.
The step in question had plastic wall tiling around it as a border - obviously, it has f*ck all grip so people slip all the time but he does nothing about it. Anyway; my manager wasn't paid anything, for either the two week period he was off or as compensation for his injury.

[bridge too far]

He sounds like a DREADFUL employer St C! How much holiday pay are you getting? By law you are entitled to at least 20 days paid holiday a year.

Did your injured manager sue him for negligence? Sounds to me like he should have done so.

[hamster]

Name and shame St C, name and shame. We won't say anything, honest.

[Johnny Bognor]

And yes, he has far more than 5 employees - round about 40-50 I would of said.

OK, fair enough, it just sounded like a small amateurish outfit. As it happens, it sounds like a medium to large size amateurish outfit.



I was going to go ahead with this, but i've decided he's made money in spite of himself for long enough. I've been merrily working 50-60 hours a week on minimum wage with, as i've said, no pension scheme, no sick pay, and terrible, terrible holiday pay. He's happy to let me carry on rather than hire someone else and cost himself money on tax etc. I'm sick of being exploited, and I don't particularly want anybody else to be in my position.

I understand how you feel and you have every right to feel agreived.

You will of course be legally entitled to do something about it, but bear in mind that if he is as bad as you say he is and you "force" him to change, then "your card will be marked", just human nature I'm afraid.

Have you talked to other members of staff to see how they feel so that this can be done collectively?

[Rattlehead]

Hope this helps. (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=burger+king+jobs)

[Saint_clark]

He sounds like a DREADFUL employer St C! How much holiday pay are you getting? By law you are entitled to at least 20 days paid holiday a year.

Did your injured manager sue him for negligence? Sounds to me like he should have done so.

We get 28 days holiday a year.
Nope he didn't, and I told him myself that he should have done. Might get in contact with him if I do take things further though.

[Saint_clark]

OK, fair enough, it just sounded like a small amateurish outfit. As it happens, it sounds like a medium to large size amateurish outfit.




I understand how you feel and you have every right to feel agreived.

You will of course be legally entitled to do something about it, but bear in mind that if he is as bad as you say he is and you "force" him to change, then "your card will be marked", just human nature I'm afraid.

Have you talked to other members of staff to see how they feel so that this can be done collectively?

I understand this, and I won't be expecting to still be working there should I take any action.
The new manager i'm working under is actually my employers father-in-law (who I might add had never worked in this type of job before, wonder how he got the position). So I won't be discussing this with him.
There are a number of people throughout the whole company though who have complained in the past but never actually taken it further.

[Saint_clark]

Name and shame St C, name and shame. We won't say anything, honest.


'fraid not. :-#

[Saint Keith]

We get 28 days holiday a year.


so what are you complaining about. thats more than most people get, and more than the legal minimum :confused:

[Hatch]

so what are you complaining about. thats more than most people get, and more than the legal minimum :confused:

+ 1.

Whats the gripe with the holidays then?

[Rattlehead]

Bloody lefties.

[Saint_clark]

+ 1.

Whats the gripe with the holidays then?

I never complained about the holidays :confused:
The point I was making R.E holiday pay was that I work 13 hours a day, and only get paid 6 hours if I book a day off. So if I book a week off, i'm going to be in the sh*t with any financial commitments.

[bridge too far]

I never complained about the holidays :confused:
The point I was making R.E holiday pay was that I work 13 hours a day, and only get paid 6 hours if I book a day off. So if I book a week off, i'm going to be in the sh*t with any financial commitments.

This is what you said earlier:

"I was going to go ahead with this, but i've decided he's made money in spite of himself for long enough. I've been merrily working 50-60 hours a week on minimum wage with, as i've said, no pension scheme, no sick pay, and terrible, terrible holiday pay"

I took this to mean that you didn't get your full holiday entitlement. Soz

[Saint_clark]

This is what you said earlier:

"I was going to go ahead with this, but i've decided he's made money in spite of himself for long enough. I've been merrily working 50-60 hours a week on minimum wage with, as i've said, no pension scheme, no sick pay, and terrible, terrible holiday pay"

I took this to mean that you didn't get your full holiday entitlement. Soz

No worries. To be fair, I don't know what the usual amount is you should get paid for holiday, but at the moment we're being paid less than half we would be getting if we'd worked.
As I said, this isn't one of my major worries.

[Saint Keith]

I never complained about the holidays :confused:
The point I was making R.E holiday pay was that I work 13 hours a day, and only get paid 6 hours if I book a day off. So if I book a week off, i'm going to be in the sh*t with any financial commitments.

i suspect that is classed as overtime, and your standard hours are 6

[bridge too far]

I never complained about the holidays :confused:
The point I was making R.E holiday pay was that I work 13 hours a day, and only get paid 6 hours if I book a day off. So if I book a week off, i'm going to be in the sh*t with any financial commitments.

You do know you're only supposed to work 48 hours a week, don't you?

[Special K]

I never complained about the holidays :confused:
The point I was making R.E holiday pay was that I work 13 hours a day, and only get paid 6 hours if I book a day off. So if I book a week off, i'm going to be in the sh*t with any financial commitments.

How many of those hours do you spend tossing it off on an internet chat forum?

[saintjinksie]

Does anyone have a link for a simple (preferably point by point) guide to exactly what an employer is required by law to provide for their employees? I have tried google, before anyone asks.
I would go to a solicitor but I don't actually have a complaint to make yet, as I want to make sure I know everything my employer is doing wrong before I take it any further.

a good christmas party and oppurtunity to photocopy you buttocks?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

. . . .

. . . . My view is, rather than challenge a crap employer, leave and take your services elsewhere.

Hmm, I see your point but the problem with that is the employer then gets another employee to treat in exactly the same way. Never realising what was wrong or, more likely, not being made to face up to their responsibilities as an employer.

[Saint_clark]

You do know you're only supposed to work 48 hours a week, don't you?

I was told something like that, but I didn't know the exact amount.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You do know you're only supposed to work 48 hours a week, don't you?

Unless you sign the opt out agreement, or is that no longer possible to do?

[Saint_clark]

Hmm, I see your point but the problem with that is the employer then gets another employee to treat in exactly the same way. Never realising what was wrong or, more likely, not being made to face up to their responsibilities as an employer.

Exactly my point. My employer makes sh*t loads of profit exploiting people like this.

[bridge too far]

Unless you sign the opt out agreement, or is that no longer possible to do?

Yep I think you can still sign an opt out. But I also think that you have to have a determined rest period between each shift. I know Mr TF works 12 hour shifts and that's the maximum he can work each day.

From what I've found by Googling 'rest between shifts' it seems that there has to be 11 hours rest between work periods.

[hamster]

Saint C, are you Polish

[pilsburydoughboy]

Unless you sign the opt out agreement, or is that no longer possible to do?

Yes you can sign the opt out agreement.

[Calvin]

Saint C, are you Polish

You must be insane to work 13 hours a day, or you dont have much of an interesting life. I would actually much rather be on the dull (thankfully I aint) than working these crazy hours!..

I really would advise you to take this to the court for exploiting you in an unfair way.

[Smirking_Saint]

Yep I think you can still sign an opt out. But I also think that you have to have a determined rest period between each shift. I know Mr TF works 12 hour shifts and that's the maximum he can work each day.

From what I've found by Googling 'rest between shifts' it seems that there has to be 11 hours rest between work periods.

If i am 'called out' past 12 o'clock the company have to by law allow me to stay in bed for the amount of hours worked past midnight. I normally start at 8 in the morning and have actually been told on a couple of occasions to leave the premises when entering work before my rest period expires.

My advice St Clark is to leave and find employment elsewhere mate, if it is possible to take him to court you could try but i expect it to be costly etc.

What is your actual professional occupational title ?? I expect you could move on.

[Rattlehead]

You do know you're only supposed to work 48 hours a week, don't you?

For f*ck's sake, we're all f*cking grown ups (well maybe not saint clark). Whatever happened to "getting the job done"? Bloody clock watching lefties.

[Rattlehead]

You must be insane to work 13 hours a day, or you dont have much of an interesting life. I would actually much rather be on the dull (thankfully I aint) than working these crazy hours!..

I really would advise you to take this to the court for exploiting you in an unfair way.

You see Calvin, you are an excellent example of why this country is f*cked. Give me a Polish worker any day over the millions of lazy Brits who feel they're owed a living.

On a related note @saint clark, being called a mentalist or a dullard by Calvin has got to hurt.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Yep I think you can still sign an opt out. But I also think that you have to have a determined rest period between each shift. I know Mr TF works 12 hour shifts and that's the maximum he can work each day.

From what I've found by Googling 'rest between shifts' it seems that there has to be 11 hours rest between work periods.

The 11 hours does ring a bell. In extreme circumstances an agreement can be made between company and employee to shorten that period. In my experience this has rarely happened but was almost always down to a need to man a job in a breakdown situation so that production can be resumed A.S.A.P. In these circumstances the employee has had a meal brought in from a local takeaway and also, if appropriate, paid for the rest of the next shift off.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

For f*ck's sake, we're all f*cking grown ups (well maybe not saint clark). Whatever happened to "getting the job done"? Bloody clock watching lefties.

Typical right wing rant, wishing to break both employment law and in doing so leaving an employee open to prosecution under the H&SAW act. This rule is in place to stop employers exploiting people and leaving them tired and, at times, not able to make coherent decisions or use dangerous machinery in a safe and appropriate manner.

Most, probably all, employment law in this country has come about through experience of work induced ill health or even death.

I bet you'd get really excited about air Traffic controllers who spend only a few hours at a time at their screen for obvious reasons. These controllers might just be keeping your holiday plane in the sky the next time you fly!

[Johnny Bognor]

ESB and BTF, you can work more than 48 hours in a week. As an individual you can opt out too (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/DG_10029426)


The rule relates to the average working week over a 17 week period. Therefore you could work 816 hours over 17 weeks in the following ways.

1. 48 hours a week for 17 weeks
2. 96 hours a week for 8.5 weeks, with 8.5 weeks off
3. 72 hours a week for 6 weeks, followed by 35 hours a week for 11 weeks

So it has nothing to do with Health & Safety, especially as you can opt out if you so choose.

This piece of genius legislation is purely designed to hold back the EU economy in some false belief that we can somehow compete with the Asia and US economies by tying up our respective employers in knots.

[Calvin]

You see Calvin, you are an excellent example of why this country is f*cked. Give me a Polish worker any day over the millions of lazy Brits who feel they're owed a living.

On a related note @saint clark, being called a mentalist or a dullard by Calvin has got to hurt.
I do work full time, and I am a hard worker
.
You really are clueless about my life.
You always assume stuff because you are a pompous idiot who thinks hes right. But you ain't right. You are just a shining example of arrogance.

Most of your posts are pathetic along with your Internet 'persona' .. I know you love to joke around but come on.. 90 percent of your posts are a total joke.

You are such a nerd.. that its funny!

Oh.. Polish workers ain't hard workers. Just cheap to hire. Believe me, I've worked with them. They are just as lazy as British people

Wuv u xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

[hamster]

If I am honest and it were me working at the OP's place, I would be out of the door. Not because of the hours, not because the ex-manager fell down the step and not because of the low pay. I'd be out becasue he simply is not happy there.

I could write loads about my best and worst jobs. If I am honest the best paid one, was the one that took me away from my family the most (dur), but I took it thinking that more money would equate to a better lifestyle.

It is one of those 'light-bulb moments' when you realise what is really importatnt in this life (REMEMBER that this is not a dress rehearsal Saint Clark my friend), I know it is a cliche but no-on ever had "I wish I'd spent more time at work" written on their gravestone.

I know there are not a lot of jobs out there right now, but there are jobs. Bad jobs really are not worth getting stressed over, believe me I know.

As said earlier I have been down the industrial tribunal route and it wasn't about the money, it really wasn't (I can't even remember how much I got in the end). It was about the (so called) satisfaction of being proven right, which I knew I was anyway. I carried on putting my family and worst of all myself through crap and at the end of the day NOTHING CHANGED; the arseholes who made my life a misery are still arseholes making someone else's lives a misery, NOT MINE though. Was it really worth it? Not one bit, not one bit.

There are some lessons in life that you need to learn early on clarky, I think you have learnt one here. Move on mate, move on.

[Smirking_Saint]

If I am honest and it were me working at the OP's place, I would be out of the door. Not because of the hours, not because the ex-manager fell down the step and not because of the low pay. I'd be out becasue he simply is not happy there.

I could write loads about my best and worst jobs. If I am honest the best paid one, was the one that took me away from my family the most (dur), but I took it thinking that more money would equate to a better lifestyle.

It is one of those 'light-bulb moments' when you realise what is really importatnt in this life (REMEMBER that this is not a dress rehearsal Saint Clark my friend), I know it is a cliche but no-on ever had "I wish I'd spent more time at work" written on their gravestone.

I know there are not a lot of jobs out there right now, but there are jobs. Bad jobs really are not worth getting stressed over, believe me I know.

As said earlier I have been down the industrial tribunal route and it wasn't about the money, it really wasn't (I can't even remember how much I got in the end). It was about the (so called) satisfaction of being proven right, which I knew I was anyway. I carried on putting my family and worst of all myself through crap and at the end of the day NOTHING CHANGED; the arseholes who made my life a misery are still arseholes making someone else's lives a misery, NOT MINE though. Was it really worth it? Not one bit, not one bit.

There are some lessons in life that you need to learn early on clarky, I think you have learnt one here. Move on mate, move on.

Spot on.

It's crazy how much more happy i am since i moved jobs, crazy.

Although i knew i was not happy in the last job i can see now just how unhappy i was, and i never knew until i moved on.

You work to live St Clark, you don't Live to work