Let’s go to the source material. The Working Time Regulations 1998 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations implement Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (O.J. No. L307, 13.12.93, p.18) and provisions concerning working time... you won’t find anything saying the employer is obliged to offer you hours just because you opted out; because it isn’t there. And that is, I believe, the meat of your debate. you may persuade them somehow, but I don’t believe arguing a legal point is the way to do it. try charm, pleading poverty, demonstrating your work quality is higher than other workers.

You are confusing rights and obligations. you have a right to opt out. they are not obliged to do anything about that. I do not know how many times we can say the same thing in slightly different ways. get a lawyer; let them tell you the same in a more expensive way, then maybe you’ll believe it.

The client wants workers under 48 hours. The client pays the wages. End of story.

Ah, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the new role is at least mainly suited to you?

first, match up your timesheets and your [payslips and ask for an explanation of any errors. You don't report them, there is no official body paying attention. You go to small claims court.

1. Depends on the terms of your career break, some guarantee the same job, some do not. What does your agreement say? 2. No, you accrue holiday as soon as you start back.

I think a post has been deleted.

"a company accepting my right to opt out of WTR so I can work >48 hours is acting illegally in holding me to the WTR restrictions by refusing to let me work >48 hours." That isn't a law which exists...nothing illegal is happening.

Not all discrimination is illegal. You have not suggested you are being discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic. So I still cannot see anything illegal. I'm not guessing, I do this for a living, but you are free to consult and pay for a lawyer.

I can't see anything illegal happening here at all, unless there is additional information missing. Is there anything else we should know?

So the first disclosure of data was BIL to the merchant. Does he have a data sharing agreement with every customer covering that? I also cannot work out how this is related to the case other than non compete clauses. Feels like a potential red herring. Nothing to do with hours or pay change before he started working for himself - I would not waste my time.

any update SB?

Two separate issues here. 1) A non compete clause may be enforceable and the exact wording needs to be checked with a solicitor. 2) If he left invoices of customer details readily visible on the desk/ counter, si the first breach point not in fact your brother? I'd say he is on dodgy ground with that one.

Hello, I am just back from vacation, sorry for delay. I am unclear what the settlement with your employer is - isn't it simply keeping you in your current job in your current location? What else is on offer? That is essentially what you asked for? It seems fair the solicitor gets paid. I'm not at all sure why your employer would pick up the tab for that? If you can give more context, there may be an angle I am not seeing.

I agree with previous posters who state you should be reimbursed. However as " I don't want to be the one who sticks a target on my back by broaching the topic" I think you have no recourse. This won't get fixed by keeping quiet. I'd probably chance my mitt by popping in an expenses claim. Boss might just think you are all on uncapped minutes contracts, not PAYG. He can only say no.