Hi Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are saying. The amount is quite significant, approximately £50 per week for a year. R

I have been battling to get the disability element for working tax credits for the 2012/13 tax year for some time. Unfortunately I found the initial claim form confusing and I didn't mention DLA on it although I did mention it on two occasions on the telephone, once for the initial claim (which they say doesn’t count as that was just to get the form in the first instance) and also again a month later when I queried the zero award I had received. As I had received a zero award I assumed I had been turned down for both the tax credits and the disability element. It was only a year later, when I started receiving tax credits, that I realised the disability element was missing. I telephoned again and this time it was awarded and backdated a month. I then took it to the appeal tribunal as they would not award it to me from the start of my claim. I lost as the judge said they had to stick by the one month backdating rule but I had a clear case for raising a complaint with the tax credit office with a view to receiving compensation.This was also put in a letter. I have since been through both tier 1 and tier 2 complaints with the tax credit office and now it is currently with the adjudicator. First they denied I had ever mentioned DLA in my telephone call, but I had recorded evidence (which they provided!), and then when they did admit it they stated the following: We asked if you were receiving any social securitybenefits. You replied DLA. Please note receiving DLA does not constitute youare disabled unless you tell us for whom this is paid for within thehousehold.’ I find the above statement frankly incomprehensible. I was specifically asked if I was in receipt of any benefits, not if anyone in my household was in receipt of any benefits. If I was asked if I was working and I replied yes, the tax credit office wouldn’t say this doesn’t mean you are in work because you haven’t told us who was in work within the household! Surely there is also a responsibility on the part ofthe advisor to ask more questions in order to verify the facts if unclear about anything that has been said. My question is, do you think I still have a case?

Hi all I have reached a resolution. HR have confirmed there is nothing in company policy to say that a copy of the letter is required. My manager has now said it won't be necessary. Thank you again for all your input. R

I would have booked it as leave but I need two weeks notice to book leave, and as it was an urgent appointment there isn't two weeks notice, so the same would apply. I would need evidence for the reason I wanted time off at short notice.

Thank you both for your swift replies. The company is quite likely to have an occupational health provider as it is a large global company. I will find out on Monday. R

Hi I have recently asked to leave work two hours early for a forthcoming hospital appointment. I have agreed to make the time up and explained when I will be doing this. However, my line manager has asked for a copy of the hospital letter. I have worked there for two years and I have never requested time off for a hospital appointment before. I have had the occasional Doctor's appointment and I have always made the time up for these. While I understand the employer needs to manage absences, I do feel there is a lack of trust and, due to the personal nature of the appointment, I do not wish to disclose this information. One option would be to provide a copy of the letter with the personal details blanked out, but my line manager says she needs to know the nature of the appointment in case it is a recurring issue. I feel this is an invasion of privacy. I have checked the company handbook and all it says is that where possible appointments must be made outside of work time, and if they are in work time the company reserves the right to deduct the time from sick leave. I should add that if I do disclose this personal information, I don't have any confidence in my manager keeping it confidential. When people call in sick she tells the team why they were sick rather than just saying that person won't be in that day due to illness. Any thoughts on where I stand? Any advice gratefully appreciated. R

Thank you for your comments. I did try to negotiate when I was offered the role, but I was told that was the pay for that job, take it or leave it basically. I was also told 'we don't pay for the person, we pay for the job.'

Hi I have recently discovered I am paid less than my male colleague (I am female) on the same team doing exactly the same work. We both started within a few weeks of each other (the early part of 2012) and neither of us has had a performance pay rise yet as these are due soon. I queried the discrepancy with HR who said my colleague scored higher in one aspect of the interview than I did and this may account for any discrepancies in pay. As they operate pay banding they don't feel I am being discriminated against. However, my colleague had no previous office experience whereas I have several years of experience, and I also have higher qualifications. I don't expect to be paid more for doing the same job, but neither do I expect to be paid less. If I go down the grievance route I fear this would not help my future prospects (and this has been confirmed by my line manager). My question is, can the rate of starting pay be solely based on scoring at interview regardless of previous experience, and how does this sit with equal pay for equal jobs?

I have proposed a counter offer and will wait and see what happens. Justice for me will be receiving reasonable compensation. I certainly don't want my old job back; it would be impossible in the circumstances. With regard to assisted blonde's comments about depression, I know full well what depression is (my father has been hospitalised by it on more than one occasion and received ECT treatment). I'm not suggesting my bout of depression was as serious as that, but I was certainly debilitated by it for a couple of months and not in a position to work. I believe my rate of pay and notice period were less favourable than those of permanent employees. I didn't mention all these aspects in the beginning as I was summarising my case, (although they are all there in my grievance). I was summarily dismissed because I challenged management's apparent disregard for my statutory employment rights as a fixed term employee.

I understand what you are saying, however, up until now I have turned down without prejudice offers which will not be admissible. Also, while I understand my claims are limited as I had less than a year's service, I believe I have a valid claim for these reasons: I was employed under a fixed term contract and was therefore entitled not to be unfairly dismissed for a reason connected with fixed term employment. I was also entitled to be treated no less favourably than permanent employees. I beleive (and so does a solicitor whom I have consulted), that my legal rights were breached in both respects. The expedited termination was a direct response to my fixed term status, and the fact that I asserted the right to be treated fairly. This belief is further underlined by the fact that I was told the company wished to ensure that permanent employees were “safeguarded” (and I have this in the notes to the grievance meeting). Additionally, even agency workers were treated with greater consideration than myself, which was not the case in relation to permanent employees. My losses include all the money I would have earned had I worked to the end of my contract as you have stated (three weeks pay). In terms of the less favourable treatment a tribunal has flexibility as to what might be just and equitable. It would take account of injury to feelings and the fact that I continue to be depressed (and on medication) and upset as a consequence of my dismissal. I am merely looking for an amount that reflects the above, and hope to settle before the tribunal. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Please quote the relevant law stating that.

It states on several employment sites: 'Where a member of fixed-term staff is dismissed because the requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished then the dismissal will be for reason of redundancy.' You could argue those employees at the university weren't made redundant; their fixed term contracts were not renewed.

I appreciate the facts of the case are different, but even when there are fewer than 20 employees made redundant there should be a consultation prior to dismisssal. This did not happen in my case.

I haven't taken this action lightly. I tried to reach a settlement with them through the normal grievance procedure first. I have been polite and cooperative with them in negotiations but I will pursue it until I feel I have achieved justice. I would hope that an agreement can be reached wihout it proceeding to a hearing. if the claim is limited to the expiry of the fixed term contract what about other fixed term cases, for example Lancaster University was ordered to pay 60 days' salary to a group of up to 30 employees whose fixed-term contracts were not renewed, after an employment tribunal said that this amounted to dismissal.

If I felt they had offered a reasonable amount given the circumstances of the case, i would have accepted and not be coming back with a counter proposal.