Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
My husband was laid off from work yesterday. He is an engineer in full time employment and has worked for this company for just over 2 years. He was given his contract of employment after 3 months and in it was a statement about the company having the right to lay people off with a rate of pay at £14 a day for 5 days in any 12 week period.
But ... he didn't sign it as he didn't agree with the terms. Since then the company folded but continued trading under another name so he continued working for them. There was no reissue of contracts and the contract of employment that he didn't sign states it is made between "The original company name" and my husband.
My questions are, is this a valid contract if it wasn't signed. If it is, is it still valid now the company name has changed? Therefore can the company lay him off at only £14 a day.
Some advice is desperately needed as we need his income and can't readily afford solicitors fees.
But ... he didn't sign it as he didn't agree with the terms. Since then the company folded but continued trading under another name
Hi Helen, sorry to hear about his problem.
A contract can be accepted by conduct so your husband will probably be bound by the term in the contract as he worked there over 2 years knowing full well that this clause was in his contract. If he can prove he continually objected he may have a chance but i doubt it. The fact the company folded but continued under a new name will probably not help either as in the absence of new contracts the old contract would be assumed to continue.
Thus as the clause is in the contract the employer can lay him off. Pay is wrong though - currently by law lay off pay cannot be less than £20.40 per day, but will onlybe paid for 5 days.
As per ACAS:
If an employee is either laid off (that is, receives no wages) or put on short-time working (that is, receives less than half a week's pay) for four consecutive weeks - or for six weeks in a period of 13 weeks - because of a shortage of work, the employee can give the employer written notice that he or she intends to claim a redundancy payment. On days on which a guarantee payment is not payable, employees may be able to claim Jobseekers Allowance and should contact their local Jobcentre about eligibility.
The reality is that this could well be a pre curser to redundancy, he should start looking for another job but don't resign yet as if he has over 2 years service he will qualiffy for a stat red payment - but it won't be much!
......................... ......................... ....................
Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.
I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.
Does this mean that even though he didn't sign the contract, the fact that he continued working means he accepted the terms by his performance? Therefore it doesn't matter whether its signed or not. That seems unfair!
What is the correct way to object to a clause. Obviously for an income you would still need to carry on working but this goes against you?
It is a company where the owner likes to play God. He lays people off almost like a punishment. My husband was asked to work this coming bank holiday weekend as a planned maintenance job had come in but he had already booked holidays off and we had made plans to go away for the weekend. Reading between the lines I think he has been laid off because he said no to working. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have happened had he arranged to work. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about this.
Does this mean that even though he didn't sign the contract, the fact that he continued working means he accepted the terms by his performance? Therefore it doesn't matter whether its signed or not. That seems unfair!
Yes I'm afraid it probably does and yes it can on occasions seem unfair. He could have an argument that he is not bound if the clause is hidden away in a very large document.
Originally Posted by Lady H
What is the correct way to object to a clause.
No specified way provided it is clear by your actions or conduct that you objected. Obvioulsy from an evidential point it would be best in writing Hard to say you objected but then continued working there for 2 years!
......................... ......................... ....................
Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.
I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.
Laid off and on £14 a day!!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Lady H
