Yes zara, I have experience of working in the building trade. Being an employee of a company but buying your own tools is not that unusual, the employee simply informs the tax office who will make allowances for it. The simple fact is that the employer would not be able to insure anothers belongings. And I just can't see how an employer is at all negligent in the circumstances, he provides a van that has working security, what more can he do? I think your hubby should have made a note of informing his home insurance to cover his belongings or just take out stand alone insurance to cover his tools. Do you have a garage? Was the van locked inside it?

I resent this remark, please take it back.

Well, I apologise skonk, it appears you are a genuine case. But, I've known of lots of malingerers who put on an act for the doctor to get signed off work or to receive a higher benefit threshold. One is able to hoodwink a GP with 'depression' obviously much easier than to say they have a broken leg! It's no surprise that depression rates have rocketed in recent years as it is very often the shannanigins of the work shy.

I'm not causing trouble, as soon as I post, which can be one week from the next, you are on my case EDIT - Please refrain from personal comments You post 'advice' everywhere EDIT - Please correct each others advice as you see fit, by posting correct advice rather than merely commenting on how poor other advice is.

C'mon! A child with a rash and fever is more a priority than some bloke who's problem is he feels unable to get out of bed and face the day! Why shouldn't a receptionist try and determine a priority by asking simple questions? More so, why wouldn't you tell her anyway in light of the above? It's sensible.

What's the point in not discussing one's ailment with a doctors receptionist? They have access to your records as soon as you ring up! Pretty pointless. In any case, depression is just a weak state of mind that can be overcome with a tough approach. It is what my doctor did to me and I subsequently discovered I was just feeling sorry for myself and should snap out of it. Which is what I did and he said 99% of these complaints are rubbish.

Are you sweet like Lindsay Lohan or a munter like Sandy Toksvic? Any lesbo I've met could prop for Wales.

It is a forum, the idea being that topics are discussed in the open so that bad (incorrect) advice can be easily corrected when read by all members. Messages, and advice, given by PM would not enable that. I am positive them are the rules when I joined last week. I'll be as diplomatic as I can, but, I certainly wouldn't act on your advice, hence, the need for your advice, in particular, to be vetted in an open forum. Just my opinion.

I think it's a little premature to reach conclusions from what you have posted on the basis of a company car being utilised elsewhere and you happen to be pregnant. You mention that you have no way to travel 10 miles to work, is there no public transport where you live? Is a car essential for your post? Is it essential for the other person to have a car? What does your contract state about company cars? What evidence do you have of discrimination against you other than a 'company' car is being used by another employee? Is the firm small in size? etc etc More info please.

I don't believe this site encourages this kind of thing.

Quite normal. Look at it this way, if you were deemed to have done something you deny would you not want to know the full facts? If you don't provide the info then they will apply to the court for it. Either do it now or wait until ordered to, or not as the case maybe. Btw, you also mention you only received minutes of a grievance 9 months later. What is the time frame of your claim?

Hello I did consider my post which is why I typed it, otherwise I would not have contributed to the reasoning. It is purely a liability matter but there is no negligence aspect by the employer to the question of liability, certainly in the way you have presented it. a) Duty of Care- theft from the workplace (of personal belongings) It appears the theft happened on a Saturday, the OP makes a point of this, which suggests a Saturday is not even a work day. Any tradesman would know not to leave tools in a van when not in use, no training is required for that basic security, only common sense. What if the personal belongings was a 50" plasma tv belonging to the OP's OH that was kept in a van over the weekend instead? Why would an employer be liable for that? The tools are associated with work but are clearly not provided for by the employer, no liability. b) It appears the van was alarmed and with working locks. c) I see absolutely no negligence on behalf of the employer in this situation. Alarm was on, locks were locked, it happened on a non-working day and the OP's OH decided to leave his own personal tools in his employers van. Maybe I'll leave my wallet stuffed with notes in my locker in work tomorrow and return Monday, after the office has been burgled over the weekend, then blame my employer for being negligent! :?

Just google these types of cases. Even the wife of a man who set up a business competing with her husbands ex-employers was seen by the court as the husband essentially acting in breach of the constraint clause! That suggests they are not only legal, but courts will go some way to actually enforce them!

Hello Sorry, I disagree. LTS was indeed asking about unfair dismissal, however, a dismissal can be fair but wrongful, it can be unfair but not wrongful and it can be unfair and wrongful. An unfair dismissal can also be automatic, which doesn't require any qualifying period. An unlawful deduction of pay followed by a dismissal because of a complaint about that would be an automatic unfair dismissal which requires no 12 month service. I simply earlier pointed out that advice that GP gave 'you do not have the right to a tribunal' is completely untrue.

Do not do the above as you will not win. The stolen tools were not the employers tools, one cannot have an insurance interest in another persons belongings. Which means they have no liability.

I think you will find restrictive covenants are widely used in legal occupations due to the sensitivity of the profession. If they use them, yet are unlawful, then I'm a gin drinking, tap dancing plastic duck.

Of course they are enforceable, especially how the OP has described the clauses in his first post. Ryan Giggs cannot play for Man Utd on Saturday but then play for Arsenal on the Monday as, no doubt, his contract will state so. That is not a restraint of trade, it is a completely lawful contract of employment clause.

Completely untrue. An unlawful deduction of pay can happen at any time and an employee is able to bring an ET claim for that, they won't need 12 months service whatsoever. If you post up untrue statements then you can expect to be corrected. This is not trolling, it is you posting up untruths and being corrected.:?

Completely legal and it appears to be a fairly standard restriction clause. Sorry.

Not you again! What is your beef and what is it with your continuous insults? For your info, I was awarded a wrongful dismissal case after just 6 weeks service. I'm reporting your previous insulting post. Again.

Pardon? Every worker has employment rights from day one. For eg one begins to acrue statutory holiday pay from the day one begins work. And dismissals can also be covered from day one as they can be deemed wrongful which have no qualification period. Not to mention dismissals concerning race, gender, sexual orientation etc etc

The law states nothing of the sort. Probationary periods are not recognised in UK employment law.

Smoking a joint will receive a rap on the knuckles whereas being in possession (of an amount more than a few joints) could be seen as an intent to supply. It is how the police, and law, view smoking a joint & possession rather than the literal meaning.

The bit 'chartered' simply indicates it has received a Royal Charter. Engineering is a skilled occupation, bit of a difference to a profession. And Brunel wasn't considered a professional in any case. In fact, despite his many great achievments, he was considered a maverick during his lifetime and often fought hard to get his ideas up and running in the first place. Read some history.