Jump to content

billathome65

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by billathome65

  1. Contract, not policy is what matters most....

     

    I agree totally with your statement. However surely if it was the manager doing the rosters and putting more hours on, then they should be required to pay the additional hours under those circumstances? I can't see the contract saying you will be required to work regular overtime but without pay and no time back in leiu.

     

    Bill

  2. So sorry to hear the news.

     

    Have you contacted a solicitor who deals in employment issues?

     

    It's very difficult to advise on how best to proceed as this goes over my experience.

     

    What I have seen from your descriptions is that the process appears to have been changed and changed again in order to move towards dismissal, and it is a new one to me that an employer has used one reason to suspend then change half way through to another matter as it seemed a better bet for dismissal.

     

    My fingers are crossed for you guys.

  3. c

    I wonder if the KC themselves have any comment to make on this ?

     

    May be worth an email to KC. It just seems to me that if breeders can set up their own contracts which are then backed by the KC this in turn produces a monopoly situation for breeders.

     

    If it is the case that breeders can create their own laws how do new breeders start up? Seems very confusing to me. Surely if someone has a bitch that is KC registered and good pedigree can be proven on both sides there should be no restriction on registration?

     

    This is interesting as I want to see who gives one breeder such authority and can dictate over others?

     

    Bill

  4. Hi thanks for the input as I said I am not looking to breed my GS and understand the reasoning behind breeders stipulating such rules this is just a general queery as I find the whole KC process interesting, and I fully agree that there are far to many people out there using their dogs as puppy farms.

     

    However I am aware that the KC has strict rules preventing conveyor belt breeding of dogs.

     

    What I see here though is a monopoly situation arising where say a individual buys a pup and genuinely seeks to continue the good genetics breeding, however unless they go back to the breeder cap in hand and say do you have a female for my male ( As chances are they will not want another person breeding a female ) only the original breeder sees any financial benefit to be blunt.

     

    My boys papers came stating I was not the registered owner and I have paid £15 to have the ownership changed over to me just because I am a very protective person when it comes to ownership matters. I am very paranoid when it comes to others holding all the aces when there are still 3 in the deck. :-D

     

    Anyway thanks for the reply I found it very revealing, my boy will have an appointment with MR. Sniper the vet soon :lol::lol:

     

    Cheers Bill

  5. If I were the admin team I would be preparing a detailed work log of what I did related to the work that is transferring; how much time doing what tasks, etc.

     

    That's exactly the information I said she needed to be putting forwards cheers it just confirms I was on the right track.

     

    If she and the rest of the admin team wanted to highlight possible discrimination with the process what sort of areas could they be addressing in order to highlight that claim?

     

    Regards Bill

  6. Hi I was not sure where to post this or if it will be able to be answered but here goes.

     

    In October 2014 i bought a beautiful German Shepherd pup ( Male ) KC registered with KC registered name chosen by the breeder.

     

    When I bought him the breeder informed me that I must sign a contract

    stating that I could not allow him to bread Using his KC registered name

    without express permission of the breaders

    as they could not vouch for the females genetic credential

     

     

    IE she may be a bad breeding match as German Shepherds are renowned for hip displacia.

     

     

    My dogs parents have excellent hip scores meaning less likelihood of him being effected with the problem.

     

    Whilst I am not looking to bread him anyway you never know someone may come to me with a good breeding dog

    good credentials and I may wish to pick a new pup from that litter.

     

    So the question is

     

     

    what is the legal stand point of the breeders

     

     

    should he breed a new litter and would that stop the owner of the female registering the pups

    If my dogs KC name was being prevented?

     

    Just a general question will be interesting to see if anyone can answer it.

     

    Cheers Bill

  7. Hi sorry to hear that you are experiencing issues due to your mental health.

     

    Firstly the comment made by your manger was totally unacceptable and using the F word in the sentence shows a great deal of contempt so I can fully understand you feeling aggrieved. You are well within your rights to put forwards a grievance over this but what is the outcome you want?

     

    I can't see them redoing the meeting again especially if you did not appeal the decision. If it was less than 7 days ago get an appeal put in.

     

    As you state your absences have been down to your mental health you may fall under the EA are you on long term medication for which if you did not take it you would be unable to function effectively if so I would sit down with your manager with a rep and make him aware of it as this may also support your absence percentage in our place if someone is covered under the EA the percentage bar is highered.

     

    Also if you are diagnosed with Bi Polar you will in my opinion qualify under the EA and your employer must then address any reasonable support issues you may require.

     

    Have you considered contacting MIND as they may be able to advise and even a visit to the disability advice worker at your local job centre may open more options to you.

     

    If your mental health has lead to a final written warning then best start supporting yourself by being more proactive.

     

    Regards Bill

  8. Sidewider I have read all the advice and appreciate the advice however whilst I accept that Emmzzi or anyone else is welcome to say a statment I had made seemed to be a sweeping one and quite rightly put me right on that matter. I find it unacceptable in a follow up post to be told I clearly have a chip on my shoulder ( I have nothing of the sort on my shoulders apart from my head :-D )

     

    I may be quite opinionated but most certainly have no chip on my shoulders I accepted from Emmzzi's responce that taring was not welcome and stated clearly that there are some good employers and as far as i'm concerned the matter is closed hopefully.

     

    I'm following my friend's situation very closely and hopefully the outcome will be helpful to others.

     

    It would seem that at the moment the new company have totally underestimated the scope of the work the admin do and as such have acted discriminatingly when making the current decision (That's how I read it at the moment) it's a waiting game at the moment.

     

    Regards Bill

  9. If you where contracted to 48 hours and regularly worked more whilst the employer is not required to pay you the overtime they should give you the time worked over back in liew.

     

    Where I work unless overtime is formally sanctioned I will not be paid for it, however, I can take this time back if agreed. ( There's the catch) If you worked above the contracted hours and did not get formal agreement that they would A pay you B you take the time back. they could say you did it off your own back and stick two fingers up at you. I got stung with that one :mad2:

     

    Bill

  10. Emmzzi Just to say in response to your unfounded statement in your last post my observations are that I find at times your responses to be rude, and quite arrogant.

     

    Just because I don't see the world through your eyes doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder. Just my views differ from yours on many things. and by making personal attacks like that all you do is lesson your credibility with myself personally, there was no need for it.

     

    From the responses you have given to people and myself in some previous posts, I am assuming you are either an employer or in HR and I accept that we may not see eye to eye on some things, but I don't know you personally and you don't have a clue about me but at least I have had respect enough to accept your views and welcomed your constructiveness at times.

     

    I have been informed today that colleagues at my friends Grimsby offices are taking legal action over the handling of the Tupe process even colleagues that have been accepted over, one of the reasons ( The way the new employers have treated them all. )

     

    Whilst you may find my statement sweeping my views are based on a personal belief developed over the years, rightly or wrongly.

     

    Yes, there are some bloody good employers out there, but they are becoming few and far between.

     

    By all means feel free to challenge me on things, I honestly value your input, however please refrain from telling me I have a chip on my shoulder because my views differ from yours as I find it quite belittling.

     

    And should you have nothing constructive to say to me then maybe it's best not to respond moving forwards.

     

    Regards Bill

  11. To offer the card is good practice. To push cards onto people when they don't want them is bullying and harassment and illegal and very bad for business . Plus it won't do the company many favors if you go peeing people off.

     

    Can they dismiss? Your role is to service customers and as part of that there is a policy to offer cards. ( That's as far as your commitment goes. ) If the new manager is advocating pushing the cards onto people then thats her choice but to threaten dismissal no matter how covertly will get them on the wrong end of a lawsuit in my opinion.

     

    Bill

  12. Cheers. But surely the 2006 regulations where introduced to stop this happening? If not then why have a regulation in the first place which can be so easily circumvented?

     

    As it stands only the admin are going. However the role is still available under a different title it seems this post is going to another agency who's pay scale was allegedly less, so it appears that it is being done to cut costs if that is the case?

     

    None of the admin from my friends company where given the option to move at a reduced rate should they wish to nor have they been considered for support roles.

     

    I understand your point on redundancies post transfer however it makes a mockery of the tupe process if a company can dismiss staff adhoc under the guise of redundant roles lets face it if it's so easy to get round the regs why have them in the first place?

     

     

     

    Will find out how this goes seems really unfair given the fact that until yesterday they where all tupe'ing over and are now left in a position that they are likely to be out of work when they could have been applying earlier for vacancies.

     

    Just shows the usual contempt for staff.

     

    Bill

  13. Cheers wasn't sure how the consultation worked for tupe.

     

    The union and HR are talking to the new service provider as they have raised objections around this matter.

     

    The new company are saying that as they are admin and don't deal with clients directly on the employment side that they are not subject to the tupe.

     

    However the old company are saying that the role of the admin is to also do all the admin work related to work start ups the employment service etc and so they do do the role of the advisers.

     

    They have also shunned the idea that they are not subject to tupe as all but one of the admin workers has been tupe'd over three times.

     

    They are also dismissing staff which is in direct conflict with the purpose of tupe rules.

     

    As they are also only getting rid of the admin they feel they are discriminating having not taken into account that all the admin staff have also been employment support workers previously to taking on the admin roles.

     

    The old company are also saying as I said that the 2006 regs on tupe law are being breached as

     

    Any legal info regarding tupe would be welcomed.

     

    Cheers Bill

  14. Slight update

     

    I have been told that all the employment advisers have been TUPE'd over and it is the 3 admin staff who have been told they are not needed.

     

    I have been told that the new provider is stating that as they are NOT employment advisers their role is not required as they are not bound by the TUPE regulations however as they are front line staff who do all the support back up for the advisers they are doing much of the same work and are actually on the same contracts with the same protection of TUPE. The new provider have admin staff but under a different title and are trying to get round their responsibilities by quoting different roles.

     

    My friends present employer is challenging the new company over their actions and are advising accordingly any other info would be good to have.

     

    I was also told that although my friend has not transferred employer officially the new provider has sent letters to the admin stating they are to be made redundant and the consultation process will begin next week? how can the new employer start the consultation when my friend is not officially their employee yet and surely if the role ends on the 5th of March the consultation period falls short of the required time frame?

     

    Cheers Bill

  15. Hi some urgent information needed on Tupe Law.

     

    A friend of mine has been working via Tupe regulations for a number of years as she works for employment training / provider services the nature of which is that the services bid and the best bid wins resulting in staff then being Tupe'd over as I'm sure most of you guys and girls will know how it works.

     

    Anyway my friends company recently lost the new contract and untill today was being told they where all being tupe over to the new service so obviously along with others did not see the need to look for new employment.

     

    However today she has been told that she along with a number of other staff are surplus to requirements and as such is being made redundant.

     

    As I see it it is a transfere of business. The new company have cherry picked current staff for TUPE showing liability and as such the 2006 regulations apply, also by cherry picking they have acted discriminatory towards staff.

     

    Her current employers have told them however that when the contract finishes on the 5th March 2015 to go to the new providers on the 6th March 2015 and if they are then turned away they can go for unfair dismissal under the Tupe Law. Is this correct and how does that work????

     

    Cheers Bill

  16. As stated OP has to show discrimination and prove it by that I mean if the information collected can be corroborated then from OP side they have provided proof whether the employer can then show that the OP was not discriminated against is down to them the employer.

     

    I'm answering a basic point of the two years ruling that's it.

     

    OP you say that you wanted to do a minute taking course to be able to prove you could do it, YOU say they do not want you to minute take because they are concerned you won't be able to pick everything up.

     

    Can you prove this? IE do you have any written statement to that effect or a witness who can say the company representative said that to you? If so then that is something to go with, however that is nothing to do with my point of two year termination rule it can be used to show discrimination in work but can it be used to show you where dismissed due to discrimination? Two different issues as I see it

     

    and also do not want me in another area as a higher risk and think I'll make more mistakes because of the nature of the work.

     

    The company has a duty of care and if they feel that the other role due to it's nature may put you at further risk they are within their rights to not place you there. However if you feel that you are able to take on the other role have they done a risk assessment? If not go back to them and plead your case. Also is there actually a vacancy in the other area for you? If not the company are under no obligation to create a post.

     

     

    My opinion only.

     

    Bill

  17. As sabresheep said re union

     

    Unfortunately if you have not been there for two years then they can terminate your employment without reason.

    You may feel unfairly treated and i'd say telll them that and tell them why you feel that way, but the decision ultimately is with your employer.

     

    Lets hope all works out in your next job.

×
×
  • Create New...