If your wife is depressed the best thing you can do is look at how to help her in that area, forget employment and issues at work, if you were to discuss relevant issues with her whist she was under the control of depression your help would be counter productive, look at the bars below my muscle chiselled avatar, my kung fu in employment issues is strong, my experience with depression of your other half is bigger ! She will never fix her work issues until she fixes the depression As far as this being a trolling thread from a neutral poster's perspective (who's been away for a while) --- [austin powers voice] oh behave

I'm quite apathetic in this area now It is unjust and deflates the industry for all the other low (insert several profanities here) paid workers out there, but we all want to pay as little as possible, even us employee loving stalwarts It can also be a pyrrhic victory as the employer just cuts more staff to balance the bills and people lose work For me if i was certain there would be no loss to the people i was trying to help i would report them (No idea if the taxman/NMW bods cares about anon reports though) If there was i chance i'd hurt the people i was trying to help i would zip it Also if your employer gets wind of your aims or concerns there will be a huge target aimed at you and the people you are helping will vanish Be careful

See above for best answer to Yes/No In respect of what it will do for you, your employer can easily (because it's true) state these are two wholly separate incidents and continue with the disciplinary and also take action for the breach of confidence separately (or fob you off and continue taking action) If your lucky (assuming the employer has a case against you) you can sometimes use it as a way of damage control in defending your case All depends on what it is, what you have done (or not done) and the ability of your employer in managing this fairly and reasonably in the eyes of employment law The advice i'd give you right now is pocket this for a while and think about what reason they have to take action and how you will defend that issue, be positive (sorry it's Friday and my Friday rule is be + not -), at least you have a heads up!

They should have to give him owing days leave calculated on his part time basis, he won't get a pay off unless he leaves, he will need to take the days They won't advertise it so i suggest he raises it formally. He may also get a formal warning for time off at the same time but that may be coming anyway.

Why anyone has a probationary period in a contract these days is beyond me as they are totally meaningless with the 2 year qualifying period legally set out to bring any claim unless worded by the worlds supreme moron of a HR officer. Just lazy copy and pasting of old contracts when employees were treated like staff instead of cattle. Just ignore it, it carries as much weight as a bag full of virtual feathers Under 2 years - Do as they like

Well this thread wins the monthly "How to get help on a forum" award for me "My question is, what can I do as an employee who works alone, and is not in a union to get a resolution to this issue?" Step 1. Raise another grievance with a higher level manager. "Surely I am entitled to have my grievance heard within ten motnhs, which is my original question" Yes you are correct, you should have, they didn't (in your opinion), go back to step one above or put up and shut up, there's you two choices. "It has taken ten months for him to do nothing and then ignore me (which is a form of bullying itself)" Not on any planet i've visited lately, it may be failure to follow their own procedures but bullying, nah, take that approach and you'll quickly become captain Ahab in their eyes.

There are two separate entities here. 1. The original complaint by the OP 2. Their subsequent suspension for the MOP complaint. For 1 the OP needs to concentrate on that on it's own for now, he may feel that they have brought this in because he complained but this really means little right now, if an MOP has complained they are fully able to investigate it. Mitigation and such around it being a month and they have only thrown it in now does seem suspicious but suspicion is all it is unless they are stupid enough to admit it. For 2 which is the most important issue currently I see nothing on the actual allegation although my spidey senses tell me it may be for the way they were dealt with/spoken to? Reading through the thread all i see is a scatter gun approach around what everybody else has done, unfortunately in disciplinary hearings and investigations this often means jack so forget anything not exactly the same as the complaint against you! It should also be remembered that if an employer wants to ignore a grievance they can do, unless the OP resigns there is little redress if the management layers are open to such shenanigans. I would be concentrating on defending the allegation now, grievance later, i would also consider formally updating the original grievance to include their failure to respond and possibly the raising of the complaint by the MOP but i would need to be very confident this allegation was spurious and could be proven to be so or that could backfire (I'd normally hold back until the disciplinary was done, if i was not sure i would make little reference to it other than enough to bring it into the grievance. However the moment it's changed a smart HR officer could kick it back to the first stage as a "new grievance" An old tried and sometimes successful way to get grievances back on track (in my experience) is to write stating "their failure to respond is a failure to agree and that you wish it moved up to the next stage" Something to consider from the OP, i too worked in civil enforcement for a few years meeting all sorts of lovely respectable characters although my work was mostly prosecution files and businesses . I did give fines now and then (thankfully not parking tickets) In all this time i had one MOP complaint against me and on reflection i was harsh and aggressive with the person due to the abuse i got. A guy i worked with ended up arguing nearly every time i worked with him, he was very effective at his job, other than a couple of high level legal issue where his actions meant the case could never go to court nothing was ever said, until he made a complaint against his boss, guess what happened next, he was hauled over the coals for exactly what was stated in the OP as they had a shed load of MOP complaints. He didn't get sacked but he hated the job with a passion now as he's constantly under the spotlight, his grievance went nowhere also. I share this boring tale because i'd say whilst your suspended take a good think about why people are complaining, I never got complaints because i never gave anybody the opportunity to pin anything on me, You have lodged a grievance, are in a disciplinary, if you get through it you won't be getting cake and drinks on your return, they will be all over you. The actual detail of the MOP complaint would be of use here greatly! Edit, forgot why i posted in the first place I see more than enough from what the OP has written to show they have form for "confrontation" this opens the door for the employer so advice should be around defending the complaint in my opinion, not procedural technicalities which will confuse tony69, they probably mean nothing anyway f the issue falls under "bullying" by his manager as you can't bring bullying complaints to tribunal and unless this one email states the OP is satan himself and eats babies it would come nowhere near enough for the OP to resign and go for a constructive dismissal claim.

You have 2 options engage a personal injury solicitor or go in work and say "i want you to offer me some money as i'm leaving because of the incident" To be honest using the terms of this guessing game i'd lean on most solicitors considering it so they can make 10k while you make 1k but in the eyes of negligence law the employer may argue it was not foreseeable and if a judge agrees, you get zip.

Off what i can see above if they have a letter stating the work is for 37.5 hrs and it can be read as the hours contractually then they can claim for at least the hours they can evidence they have worked, however i smell zero hours contract to be honest (if they argue it) and it revolves around non payment of wages. the missing sums for hours worked may be claimable. I see nothing around unlawful deduction (they just did not pay), protected disclosers (not relevant here) so i would send you back to the sheep's post above for best course of action.

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/8/6/Varying-a-contract-of-employment-accessible-version.pdf A better guide on how to deal with contractual change and the rights and pitfalls if you say no. I'm not against people going to the media or MP but in my experience they won't give a dam and it is beyond pointless.

Only on the internet

In the past (4-5 years ago) i would have said approx 12 months from start of absence to dismissal was the norm for sickness which was clearly backed up by medical advice and genuine reasons for the person being unable to work. Some went higher, some lower but i'd call that a fair average. With the last and current governments i would not be surprised if tribunals were allowing less time between commencement of sickness and dismissal but this is guesswork from me, semi-confident guesswork seeing how many other employee rights have started to deteriorate. As long as your aware that no likely return means with every day your more likely to be dismissed for absence, it's one issue you can tick off your unresolved list!

As its hot and i've had a few "sherries" my reply must be read or sung to the tune of Mr Tom Jones It's not unusual to be shafted in this way It's not unusual for your boss, not to say ok but when I see them legally withholding your.... salaried pay It's not unusual to see me cry, oh I wanna' die

let me be blunt here so you don't get wrapped up in the magical world of "how I think these things should be handled". I do not mean this sarcastically, I'm just trying to bring your feet back down to the ground Good luck but in my experience the key to these cases is getting yourself back in work as quickly as you can and showing this during formal meetings. Anything else leaves you open without clear medical reports that back your position and offer a timeline where you will be able to go back to work.

read this https://www.gov.uk/sunday-working read it again then read it again then read it again and do your damned hardest to pick a hole in your position from your employers side, spin it, cheat, try all sort of spurious arguments you think they might try If it's still watertight print it off and hand it to them (sooner rather than later) If not come back for more advice. Expect them to either a) huff puff and do nothing to change your terms b) tell you tough c) come back with a counter argument (may be valid or rhubarb) Your at the start of a game, a game played with your personal life but still a game. The more you know about your rights and the rules of this game the more chance you have of saying "sorry but no thanks" (Note to other forum denziens - it can't be as easy in the link to say no as i'm seeing can it?)

Basically it's up to you. Check the policy and see if it allows for them to increase a sanction on appeal (most don't) as this will be a major part of your decision making. if they can't do more than uphold the original warning then it's a case of "speak now or forever hold......" If you do not raise it within their procedures then they have every right to say you missed the boat if you later wish to rely on it. Personally i think i would get something in so it's on the books as they say. Bluntly : No Appeal means you've accepted their warning without rebuttal.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the only thing an employer can do with bank details is pay in, not take out? Therefore unless they intend breach the DPA by giving access to others (excluding the Vatman etc.) i see nothing to worry about whatsoever in them having them. There may even be a requirement to hold this data for a period of time but this is a guess.

"As an alternative approach : is your employer's fleet fitted with "black boxes", and if so : is it worth asking if your metrics show an increase in sudden breaking / swerving than the "normal" drivers - as if not on what basis do your employers base their concerns?" I would never in a million years invite anyone to look through tracking generated data, i'd put my house on it everyone here who drives would see many bad readings on it and unless you remembered every occasion "oh that was where i car stopped suddenly, a car pulled out, i swerved as kids were messing etc." it will only make you look bad. The employer does not ever need to gauge this against how the rest drive, only the highway code and road traffic act. The only way for me for the OP to prove he is fit to drive is through medical reports, lack of accidents is a factor but their concern is the accident waiting to happen, with the recent bin case in scotland where the driver killed the pedestrians after having a heart attack i know the transport department where i work is very nervy about any know risk for their drivers now and is undergoing a massive health surveillance excercise. The employers position here is simple Risk Assessment :- Hazard - Road traffic accident due to sleep or tiredness caused by their staff member with a medical condition they were aware of. Likelihood of it happening. -???????? I'm all for employee's rights but if i was a manager here the person would be off driving until i was positive that likelihood was 0% and that i could also prove this in court/coroners on behalf of the employer if one of my employees injured a member of the public where one or more fatalities is a definite possibility of the known hazard. Unless the OP can prove he is as safe to drive as the normal employee i get the feeling this will turn into a medical redeployment case where the employer should be looking at alternative roles in the company.

Goodwill payments are usually when the employer thinks "hmn, could i be found to have unfairly dismissed this employee if i just dismissed them" or when the employer thinks the time cost effort of defending a claim isn't worth the hassle. I suppose there are employers out there who think, "this chaps given us 30 years of his life so lets say thank you", you tend not to come across them in our line of advice as not many people post saying "i'm too ill to work and my employer has offered a generous package, woo ho!" Looking at what you have put i doubt you have a company pension which can offer more entitlement and access to the pension but it is worth checking with your private provider, if you don't ask.......... It appears to be a perfectly fair (in law) dismissal from what i can see, good luck with the recovery from the stroke.

I can't see anything in this thread where the injured person is an appointed safety rep or has one representing him, therefore the srsc regs are probably a red herring here (have not checked but would expect every one of those sections you referenced to start along the lines of "safety reps must be.....") The employer probably will on request put up the documents as they would need to be disclosed under legal privileged once a claim went in anyway. In most cases as soon as they are requested, My point was and remains, it is very dangerous to say "you are legally obliged to give me this" when technically they are not, it undermines the persons credibility in a hearing. Feel free to prove me wrong and show me a line in any regs where it says employee's (not safety reps) must be given a copy of the RA, I'd love to be wrong on this one.

Indeed, although there is case law where employee's have covertly recorded a hearing and it has been accepted by the tribunal, i only have to count the fingers on my right hand for the amount of times it's fallen in the employees favour and i'll have a couple left to count! A couple of things i noted, RA's and SSOW's do not need to be updated every 12 mths unless this is the companies policy via their own H&S policy. It is advised by the HSE "periodically" but of course the longer you leave them not reviewed the less chance you have of showing good safety systems. The management regs acop was removed and no longer has any standing in tribunal from its quasi legal status in the past meaning much of the usuful advice is now irrelevant. Section 10 is the goto part for getting the risk assessment, however there is no legal duty to provide the RA, they must provide the following Information for employees 10.—(1) Every employer shall provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on— (a)the risks to their health and safety identified by the assessment; Therefore he needs to work out what they have provided him with via training, notices and instruction on how to safely unjam the machine, for example was there a safety sign on it in white and blue stating (do not remove, shut it down first etc.) The ket part is he if walks in and says you are legally obliged to give me a copy of the RA, they can say no your not and there is nothing worse in my experience than someone stating facts that are not. He asks the employer to provide him with suitable information to show that they have communicated the risks to him and also the procedures to fix a jam safely. usually that means he gets a copy of the RA or SSOW but it's how you ask that matters. I would be co-operating with their hearing totally to ensure i was fulfilling my contractual obligations but they would get nothing out of me for free which helps their case unless i divulged it for my own defence. Don't give them anything you don't have to, for a case of this nature i would be on the front foot telling the employer it was their case to prove their actions were not negligent for my member, not for him to prove his innocence. *caveat, prove/innocence isn't really good terminology in this area as there isn't a need to prove either as the employer decides "on the balance of probabilities" for the burden of proof. One potential optimistic view (it's a first for me for a while) is that if an employer knew they were negligent and covered it up then unless they were insane they would also know dismissing that person would add a significant weight to any legal case due to the detriment it would cause for him in addition to the injury. This means often there is a written or final written issued instead of dismissal. it's their way of getting something in black and white to say "it's his fault" without taking the chance a tribunal will nail them! Good luck

This would not be the first time i've seen an employer think blaming a member of staff is the correct way to deal with a breach of H&S and think this is what the HSE expect or that it will get them off the hook. The last one the employee i was with was told by the manager they were being disciplined, the HSE inspector took a very dim view of this due to the circumstances and took enforcement action on the firm, the employee sued and won for personal injury. He needs to curb any anger, lose your temper, lose your argument. If i was him i'd be asking what the findings of the investigation were and why they have now instigated remedial measures after he was injured. PUWER is your friend here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/regulation/11/made If the employer did not fulfil the regulations around dangerous parts of machinery (link above) this would be a breach and then potentially enforceable by the HSE (really does depend how many people have been maimed that week as to if the HSE will even look into it if they have been made aware). Did they report it to RIDDOR (he must have been off over 7 days because of the accident) and did he tamper/remove/alter any safety devices, ignore normal or written safety procedures to do what caused the accident? This is usually where the disciplinary comes in. If they do go for him and he is blamless he can ring the HSE up and ask them if they were notified of it. As always the devil is in the detail here. Also employer will be expecting a PI claim so will be looking to mitigate and even if they know they are at fault (10% -100%) maybe looking at contributory negligence where they can lower any PI award.

Potential dismissal and re-engagement as some people may not be able to work the hours. Will depend on if your hours are set or "flexible" in your contract. They should be formally consulting and issuing letters of change. If not grievance and you will get up to 90 days to decide if you can do the new hours or not. If you have genuine problems you need to respond in writing and ask them to set out their position, consultation time frame and intention as to when they wish to change your contract. If the manager is trying it on expect the brakes to be applied. If there is something we are unaware of (like them already following the process and you missed something) you get 10 days.

I'd rather be an intern than sent to a pound shop to stack shelves for free, we are nearly back to the old YTS schemes, the government (all just as bad whichever party) just got coy and didn't give the schemes a name. I was in a pound bakery the other day and saw an advert for "apprentice" shop assistants, no disrespect but you take cash or put food in an oven and check the temperature when the buzzer beeps (the overjoyed minimum wage till assistants own words). Up the street the local chippy has just taken on an apprentice - I genuinely worry for kids these days trying to get into any job. At least with an intern they may actually end up with a career if they have rich parents, most folk have little chance of anything other than living week to week. Gets off soap box

The problem i see here pension wise is we all know this must be a nightmare for the person but rules are clinical. Is it possible that the person could work fully if there wasn't a chilli in the vicinity?, yes That's the problem, no chilli, nothing wrong with them, when your back or knees pack up, your pretty stuffed whatever you do, when it's a triggered condition removing the trigger removes the problem, how you could do that i've no idea but i doubt any pension rules would care. Strangely enough i thought about this thread in the office last week when i asked what the bowl of what looked like pot pourri was, it was chilli in a form i've never seen before.