So what you are saying is that you have no idea what you have ever been paid, and no idea what you are currently paid? Do you never check your wages? When you TUPEd you didn't bother to check whether your new employer was actually paying you correctly? Sigh. Look. You are over thinking this. You remind me of someone I represented in the distant mists of time who couldn't be trusted to say anything, so I made her recite "i'm trying to help you but I have no recollection of that" for weeks - because she also kept over thinking it and trying to answer things that hadn't been asked or weren't relevant. It doesn't matter what THEY say. YOU just keep with the mantra that this was the term before you transferred, it transferred with you, it's a term of your employment, you aren't agreeing to give it up. NOTHING ELSE! Please, just stop "thinking". Let them make the running. You need prove nothing. Then if they pursue this, come back and tell us what they actually say, or what they actually intend to do. Got it?

No. The fact that it was paid for so long AND predates this employer would make that a difficult argument to sustain. Which is why all you need to do is stick to the simple " it was part of my terms and conditions with the previous employer and TUPE'd with me". You are over thinking this, and that is going to get your mouth into trouble- you will end up saying something you shouldn't. It is not your job to work out what the employer might say or what you might say in response. You stick to the fact that this is a term historically agreed by the previous employer and forms part of your TUPEd terms. Say nothing else. Answer nothing else. Explain nothing else. It's for the employer to play this, not you.

You can't just send statements to courts. Courts don't accept "evidence" from random strangers. As Emmzzi suggests, you could ask the other side if they could use anything from you. But I'd caution you to be clear headed about the fact that your actions are motivated by revenge, not justice. That much is clear from your language. And there's that old saying about digging two graves to remember. Your version of this is clearly absolutely true. You knew all about this employers illegal activities and shady dealings - which you can evidence; and which, of course, you reported to the appropriate bodies at the time, didn't you? You are alleging clear criminal activity which would not be protected even in a phoenixed company. Company status does not protect directors from action which is illegal. So when you are on the stand in that court, their lawyer will be asking you for your evidence, for the details of the reports you made, and the outcomes. And if you do not have those, then your are a lying disgruntled former employee. If you do have evidence but did nothing, you are a complicit former employee. In other words, almost every way you cut it, you end up looking as bad as the person you are accusing. Or worse. Besides which, if the company no longer exists, who on earth is the former client suing? There's no personal liability unless they can prove - prove - that he acted illegally or negligently. That's a very high standard to prove on current activities, never mind historical ones. Get involved, and you invite attack on you. What he claims has no validity unless he has evidence. Lawyers can twist and turn your involvement- you could easily have the opposite effect. As for defamation. If you could afford defamation proceedings, you wouldn't be on a free anonymous website asking for legal advice. There's a £10k court deposit for such proceedings. Really, sometimes anger is best left in the past.

Why?

Ah. Now it's becoming clearer how this has become an issue. If someone was paid it and then hag it taken away, then the issue arose out of that. So other people did know the allowance existed, and that explains how everyone found out about it. But that doesn't change anything. They can, if they want to, withdraw the allowance if they follow the correct procedure. Your only position is that it is a term, and a TUPE'd term - no cause to explain anything at all.

You have no right to take anyone with you. This is neither a grievance nor a disciplinary - which are the only circumstances in which you have that right, and even then, it is only a trade union official certified for that reason or a colleague. I do feel that you are overthinking this. Where are these "feelings" coming from, because what you think the employer will ask appears to be a rather convoluted approach by them to something that is actually easy. Is there something else going on here that you aren't telling us? It is not up to you to go into a meeting and explain or prove anything. If you have paperwork relating to the original agreement that would be useful, but all that does is prove that you did have the allowance agreed at some time in the past. It doesn't prevent them withdrawing the allowance, and only dictates how they can do so. Your position is that your previous employer paid that allowance. That was a term that TUPEd over with you. Full stop. There can't be a mistake unless it was a mistake by the previous employer and at this stage they cannot prove that even if it were true. You do not agree to the allowance, to which you are entitled, being withdrawn. You don't say or explain anything else. It is then down to the employer to decide what they are going to do. They can, as I have explained, lawfully enforce a change of terms, or they can drop the issue. If they did the former, they must follow the process that I've explained to you already. Anything else can be ascribed as an unlawful deduction of wages. It isn't up to you to prove anything. Your wages have been paid with this allowance for xx years, by the previous employer and this one. They would have to prove that there was a mistake, and they would need evidence of that. How, exactly, do you think they will provide it? Even with the law stacked against employees, an employer can't simply say "we made a mistake in your salary, give us some back"! They need proof a mistake was made. I'll ask this again though. Is there something else going on here that we don't know about? Advice is only as good as the information it's based on. And you do seem to to have a recurrent "feeling" that they are going to ask about or argue specific points.

I totally understand that you feel aggrieved. But does he? Because your aren't suggesting that he does. He is, quite literally, going to have to fight his own battles now. What does he want to do?

Hmmm. Now this one is potentially very interesting. On a very basic level, and assuming that he had less than two years service, then yes - he is entitled to a full weeks notice pay (assuming that contractual notice isn't more), plus his week in hand, PLUS holiday pay owed (if there is any). However, at a more complex level (which he may or may not wish to pursue, but the threat may be useful) an employer who enters into an apprenticeship agreement is legally bound to that agreement in full. Apprenticeship agreements are not like normal employment contracts. So your son has the option to also sue for the damages caused by that breach of contract plus, of course, any deductions the employer made (if he wasn't paid for example). Apprenticeship agreements can only be terminated in very limited circumstances, and not wanting to pay the college isn't one of them. I would suggest that he sends a letter before action, warning the employer that he has taken advice, and that he is owed £xxx for pay until.... (And just for the hell of it, put in a claim for the full notice he gave! ); plus £xxxx for the week in hand; plus holiday pay off £xxx (PLUS, if you really want to push the threat, £xxx for deductions and losses from the breach of contract with regard to the apprenticeship, plus £xxx damages for breach of contract over the apprenticeship), and that he has 21 days to pay in full or immediate legal action will begin without further notice, at which point legal and other fees will be added to the costs to the employer. If that doesn't shake loose at least the amount he's owed, put in a tribunal claim for it - you'll need to go via ACAS conciliation, but it's all free.

Yes Ethel, I agree. It was more by way of muddying the waters than by any expectation it'd work!

I had wondered about that myself - if only one person had this allowance or knows about it, how could they know to complain? However, it's a good idea to see if there could be some form of tapering off against future increases - although that assumes regular pay increases, which is not common to all employers. But don't get distracted by overly explaining to the employer. It might, originally, have been a "retention bonus" for the most experienced staff in order to retain them. But it now appears, from the employers point of view, to be having the opposite effect! They have a number (a larger number than one) of "newer" employees - and by newer it no longer appears to be defined as less experienced or valuable to the employer - who are demotivated and angry about the fact that they get paid less than another person for doing the same job. The employers focus appears to be on pacifying them without it costing the employer more. So retaining them is now the issue, not retaining you. Quite possibly because they don't believe you can or will walk if they take your allowance away. To justify the allowance, you either have to convince them that there is a reason that you are more valuable than other employees (which is, according to you, the only reason you get it) or that there is a good reason to extend the allowance to some other employees on the same basis (and that needs to be a reason that the employer sees benefits them, not about what benefits you). Alternatively, you can sit on " I have TUPE protections and you can't change my terms". For the reasons I've already explained, that has next to no hope of being upheld legally at this point in time, so you'd be being on the employer not knowing that or not finding that out - we don't know how likely that is, but unless it's a small employer, that's not very likely. Possibly worth a punt, but not a potential goer in reality. There's one other possible strategy, but again, this is the sort of thing that I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for - and it would probably work only temporarily and works best when you have a union presence that can intimidate the employer.... That's righteous indignation and fury about "who had breached data protection and privacy" by disclosing this information. It's a distraction rather than an argument - not all employers will fall for it or care. But some might get tangled up by demands for investigations into who has disclosed this. I do doubt it would have much impact though.

There is no possibility of repayment being supported by the courts. But not, as one poster suggests, because it is impossible to recoup mistaken payments after four years. That is simply not true. "Debts" of any kind, including overpayments can be recouped in court for six years (in England and Wales) - and are. That's the law. Regrettably, some people who advise on these boards don't really rate the law as counting, but unless you happen to live on another planet, you must. Anyone who has a strong union presence in a workplace, who can beat employers at their own game, doesn't post here! And the revolution is still a long way off. The reason you don't owe any money back is because it wasn't a mistake. You were paid this amount by the previous employer, and that term TUPE'd with you. No mistake. Removing the allowance, even back then, might have been possible (TUPE doesn't provide half the protections some think it does) but to have done so required the employer to do what I have already described - change the terms either by agreement or by lawful enforcement. It couldn't have happened "in secret". If the allowance is to be removed, it must be done by consulting (which they are doing - that is what the meeting is for) and, if you did not then agree, by enforcement. As I explained, that would require them to serve you notice and then offer you the new contractual terms to run from the date of the expiry of notice. There isn't any other way. That has a paper trail. None of that means that the employer will or must do any of that. They can lawfully pay you differently from other people. If they don't wish to do that, that is a choice that they are making. You can make any choices that you wish as well. You can accept it. You can work under protest and file a tribunal claim over the terms change (if you are tough enough to sue your employer whilst still working for them). You can let them dismiss you and claim unfair dismissal. You can find another job. I'm telling you what the law says you, and your employer, are allowed to do. Not what you want to do or what you must do. That way you can make an informed choice. That is not, as some posters think, siding with employers. Broadly speaking, the law sides with employers. That's a fact. Anyone who doesn't like the fact, well that's tough luck. I don't write the laws. If I did they'd be very different. But living in a could cuckoo land that consists of ignoring everyday realities is not going to protect your allowance or your job. You know what can be done. What you decide to do about it is down to you, not anybody here.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't much care about your opinion on matters. "Fair" in the world view is not the measure the law uses. What they are suggesting, provided that either you agree, or that they enforce it correctly, is lawful. And the employer knows that your aren't likely to be willing to bet your job on a game of chicken. The reason why this was paid originally is really a red herring. The fact that you have the same job as others but more pay is the only matter in this discussion. Legally, that's also "fair" - there's nothing in law that says they must pay you all same amount. Legally, every single one of you could have a different wage. But realistically, the employer is effectively saying that they aren't prepared to about everyone else by having different wages, and they aren't prepared to give everyone else a pay rise, so their simplest answer is to remove it from the one person who has it. Of course, the moral to this tale is that this is what loyalty is worth in the employers book. You might want to think about that. There are always better jobs out there if you have a reason to look.

Regrettably, provided the employer plays this correctly, it's entirely possible that the allowance could be removed. Knowing the original terms is a bit of a red herring. Whatever reason you got it is in the past. What matters is now. Now you actually do get it and have been paid it for a long time. So now you are entitled to it. TUPE is also something of a red herring at this stage. Technically the protection of your employment terms last for ever. In reality, that isn't true. For years on, and with a good business reason, they can easily justify changes to harmonise terms. The business reason is obvious - paying you this is causing disharmony. They could pay it to everyone else, of course. But that isn't likely to happen. So, to remove it they must discuss it with your and try to obtain your agreement. If you don't agree then they must enforce it by serving you notice and offering your a new contract without the allowance. Then that becomes your choice. Accept the new contract, or your notice will run out and you have no job. It is possible to then claim unfair dismissal. The reality of that is far from attractive. First off, obviously, you have lost your job. You can quite possibly lose- and whilst there isn't enough information here to be relatively certain, I'd suggest that you would probably lose. It's not likely to garner much support that you are willing to throw away your employment and the whole income over an allowance. Unfortunately, it's that simple. If they want to remove it, they will. And your options are not ones I'd recommend trying out. Your only real opportunity, if you can call it that, is to refuse, submit grievances, and play for time. But all that will achieve is to likely annoy the employer. So it depends whether that bothers you. And it will only get you time, it won't stop them changing terms if that is what they are determined to do.

Don't read anything into this. Until such time as notice expires, he is still employed under normal terms. Requesting OH is a sensible and standard approach given the circumstances. They wish to be assured that the employee wishes to resign and that this is not solely a result of their mental health condition, and something they might later regret having done. I appreciate you haven't given many details, but you have given enough for me to be relatively confident that the solicitor is not saying they can't help you because of time or money, but because you have a poor case. The bar for constructive dismissal is very high. Very few cases succeed. You are incorrect in saying that he had no choice but to resign. He had the choice to focus on improving his health and then returning to the grievance. Given you are saying that he has poor mental health right now - albeit you allege that this is work related - it is entirely reasonable of the employer to say that they wish to postpone the hearing of a grievance until the lesson is fit to fully participate. Proceeding could cause further deterioriation in his health and that could be laid at their door if they proceed. So he had given them no opportunity to resolve the grievance, which is one of the first tests of constructive unfair dismissal - that the employee either has exhausted the employers internal processes, or that the beach is so serious and significant as to justify immediate resignation (clearly not the case here). I'm going to be blunt. "His union won't help" - or is that they don't think he has a case? "A solicitor won't help" - or is that that they don't think he has a case? Based on the information here, I think his argument is very weak - I would question whether he has a case. When everyone is telling you that they "can't help" it isn't sensible to take the approach that they don't want to, as opposed to the fact that your conclusions might be wrong. If you are simply aiming for, hopefully, some form of economic settlement prior to a tribunal, which some employers may pursue, then that is your choice (or rather, his choice) and risk. But be clear that that is what you are doing. If you are aiming to win a tribunal, or if the employer isn't minded to settle first, please bear in mind that no matter what he is currently experiencing as a result of all this, that is nothing compared to the stress of a tribunal and the prolonged process it involves. That is regardless of all the actual "facts", none of which I know from this, but which will be used as mallets against your husband - if this gets into a tribunal, or even heading to tribunal, it will be no holds barred. And he will be the target of that. So I'm going to advise you to think very carefully about whether their ask is actually a silver lining and not a trap. He has the opportunity to withdraw his resignation, spend some time getting better and then go into a grievance process from a stronger position, health wise at least. I can definitely tell you that, from substantial experience, it is the grievance process that not only improves your chances of winning a constructive dismissal case (although the odds are still heavily against you), but also that it may actually help by providing you with confirmatory evidence to use. Again, those things are true regardless of whether or not I know the detail of his grievance.

If you have been in a role for a long time, you may find that it isn't the job that had changed, but the "culture" and "language". You may simply not be hitting the right notes, so to speak. Is there someone you might be able to get some advice from in terms of your CV? Sometimes an impartial observer rather than a friend is able to give much better advice.

You are asking us if there would be consequences for lying to a potential employer. The answer is, obviously, if you are found out, then yes, there could be, and that could include dismissal at any point in time that they found out. So there would be no "safe period" after which they couldn't dismiss. Basically, you are starting out a relationship with a lie. If you chose to lie, that's your choice, but you won't find anyone here telling you it's risk free. To be honest, I'm surprised. Are you quite sure that the reason you aren't getting offers is related to your reasons for leaving? I hang around with a lot of dismissed people - many of whom may have actually deserved it. And to be honest, I won't say they find it easy, but generally few employers push back that hard, especially agencies. Is there something in the nature of the jobs that demands more transparency than you are giving them? Or could there be another reason entirely? One other issue might be expectations. In my experience many people need to take a step back, or even two, and settle for "a job" then work their way back. Expecting to go back in at the same level you left may be a barrier. But I'd admit to being surprised that even agencies are pushing back on the "personal reasons" explanation when you have a reference. That is unusual. Few people want to get embroiled in the story of your life tragedy, and that's what they are inviting by pushing. I suppose the other question to ask is - are you sure that is all the former employer is saying?

I guessed. Or, I assumed. Either that or it was what you were drinking at the time Unfortunately, as you know all too well, people assume so much about their employment rights and entitlements that simply aren't true; and then totally underestimate the ability of an employer/ manager to "get them back" if they go too far. And even if your grievance is well founded, making it personal and attacking the manager is something you should only do with a great deal of evidence and a great deal of thought. I know you hang around here often enough not to need to be told this, but for the benefit of others.... I am constantly surprised by the number of people who think that they have a right to be off sick, that their employer must simply suck it up, and that "never being off sick before" is a reason for no action being taken when they are off sick! The law has become increasingly clear about this matter. The employer has no flexibility to decide that they will only apply sanctions to "slackers" and people who are clearly (they believe) pulling sickies. It has nothing to do with being genuine. If the employer is going to dismiss anyone (and that's the ones pulling sickies too) then they must have a sickness absence / management policy; and they must apply it fairly, equally and transparently. That means that if you want to sack Joe who has worked for you for two years, had 12 days off always on Monday due to not wanting to get out of bed, then you must also sack Josie who has worked for you for ten years without a single days sickness but has had 12 days off for genuine sickness too. That's a rather simplistic explanation of how these policies work, but it suffices. Basically, the employer must treat everyone the same, no matter what they believe. If they don't, they will very likely end up in a tribunal and with a costly unfair dismissal award. That's why these policies now exist - because that is exactly what happened to some employers. Even if sickness is related to a disability, there is no absolute right to be treated differently under such policies. In some circumstances, having a higher threshold for disabled employees might be a reasonable adjustment. But it's only a might. The only situation in which there is an absolute legal right to sickness being discounted is where the sickness is pregnancy related. In that case, that type of sickness should be accounted for separately and not used to trigger such policies - although non-pregnancy related sickness will still be counted for pregnant employees, so it is important that they ensure that they properly notify any sickness absence, and if in doubt, get a fit note if sickness is pregnancy related. In the case here, the OP was off on long term sickness. The employer applied their policy. End of story. Everything else is window dressing. Having triggered an action by having XX days off, then it is what it is. As I said, just getting a caution is actually a relatively lenient first sanction - almost every policy that I have seen starts off with a warning stage and strict targets for sickness reduction.

Thank you. I will try very hard to like the new site. Although I fear it's going to be an uphill struggle!

Sorry - juggling five things at once including my granddaughter. The new one please - I have made a note of everything so I don't forget again!

Arghh! Thanks. I thought it was me being stupid! And I wasn't doing much to hide my other user name! Is it possible to merge my old account into this one? I had lost my password anyway, so I was only able to log in on one device that had saved it. So having this new account is useful for me as I can then use it on other devices. My bad for losing my password. PS - just in case it wasn't that obvious - the other account is sangie595!

I've had to create a new account because (a) I haven't been banned but (b) half my "old persona" won't work - I can post but all attempts to send PM's or get into the Inbox are met with a blank page. Thought it was something to do with me, but no, my "new account" has exactly the same issue and any attempt to load the Inbox or to send a PM to anyone gets me an error message and a blank page. I'm finding the interface very user unfriendly and useless.

Sorry, yes it's lawful. Nobody is legally entitled to more than the national minimum /living wage. Any payment above that is contractual, and the employer can set any contractual terms they like. What you are describing is not uncommon amongst certain employers. Basically, they can include any bonus or commission in the calculation to get up to the minimum wage, effectively reducing the basic wage by this. Providing its set down clearly, as you say it is, that's lawful. Fishy? No. Perfectly lawful. Does she need a better job? Of course she does....

One would hope not. I was suggesting exactly what I said. Check out reality. But ignoring reality can have that outcome.

Seriously? I understood your post and found it perfectly clear. As was the response. Not getting the answer you wanted is not the same thing as being angry or wrong. Sickness absence processes are common and the conditions under which they must be applied are clear in law. I have explained that to you. In order to complain about a managers bias you must first have evidence of the managers bias. I have explained that to you. You appear to believe that anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you is biased, angry or wrong. A reality check might improve your position.

The bottom line is buried in that post. Discretionary. Most of what you are complaining about comes down to matters of judgement. So, for example, if you need an adjustment then they can ask for a doctor's note to confirm this. But that doesn't mean they must or can give you that adjustment. And if they don't, you are still off sick. You may not like that fact, but they are operating within the law. "Fair" and "legal" are not the same thing, but people often think they are. So the company didn't ask you to stay away from work - you were not fit for work because your doctor said you would be only fit to work if you got the adjustment - and you didn't, so you weren't. And if they have not managed sickness correctly in the past, then actually, it is entirely correct that they should start doing so! I have to admit, I'm unclear as to why you think it is doing you any good to fight a caution that doesn't, on the face of it, seem to have any real impact on you. Assuming you aren't going to have lots more time off work, this is a short-term issue that will have no impact. If your are going to have lots more time off work, then that future time off work is the issue - caution or not. But the point of your post was that you are alleging the appeal manager is biased. You have presented no evidence of that. Making such an allegation based on supposition isn't likely to do you any good. Stick to the grounds of complaint and don't get dragged into side issues that will simply muddy the water unecessarily. But please keep this in perspective - if you had had this length of time off work, many employers, including my own, would have given you a lot more than a caution. And my employer is a trades union. These policies are commonplace now, and if your employer also had one, expecting that they won't apply it isn't a reasonable position to take.