Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Zodiac


Jimbo44 last won the day on November 4 2006

Jimbo44 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

572 Excellent

About Jimbo44

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. ....and here too! Got a very nice cheque through the post this morning!!!
  2. Hi midge61 In essence if your friend's GP says she is fit to work and signs her "well note" then she has a right under common law to be paid her wage by her employer. A person willing to work has a common law right to be paid. If she is a member of a trade union I suggest she speaks to her shop steward/representative who will be able to guide her in making sure the employer complies with the law. As an aside, you say your friend was injured on a bus. If the accident was in any way "caused" by the bus company I hope she is pursuing a claim?
  3. As far as I am aware, (and I'm more than happy to be corrected too), only a worker's GP or a hospital doctor can sign them back to work with a 'well note'. However, an employer has a right to decide if the employee is fit to resume his or her particular job and this is commonly done by an Occupational Health Physician. Sometimes the two disagree and the GP will issue a 'well note' either regardless, or in ignorance of the OHP's decision. If the employee's doctor says that they are fit to return to work, but the employer wants further medical checks, the employee should be paid full wages while waiting for the checks to take place. A person who is willing to work has a common law right to be paid. A word of caution though, a refusal to be examined by the OHP could give the employer a lawful reason to stop his occupational sick pay (if he's in receipt of any) I suggest your partner informs his employer of this and, if he is a member of a union, that he enlists their help to put the point across. In the case of my own employer, if an employee is signed back to work by his GP/hospital, but the company want him/her to see their OHP and he refuses to let the employee return to their normal job, then the company have to pay the employee full, normal wages until the OHP agrees he/she is fit to return to normal duties.
  4. I would just make the point re training costs that any agreement by an employee to repay training costs if they leave within a certain time must be agreed in writing, be specific and clear and made before any incident which would give rise to a deduction. It is also interesting that one Tribunal has said this does not constitute an authority to deduct! It's not just the employer either who can make a claim for breach of contract in the civil courts.
  5. On the face of it this would seem to be a "redudancy" that could be classed as unfair if the "trainees" are going to be doing the same work as that done by your husband. I agree with qbal's comments above. Your husband should seek urgent advice from either your local CAB, a trade union (if he is a member of one) or a lawyer who specialses in employment law as there could be a case for unfair dismissal.
  6. Couldn't agree more!! Make a serious effort to address the items on the list and frankly, if that's all the employer's worried about, get on with his job.
  7. Just so that it's clear can you tell me what the act of Gross Misconduct was? Was it because you submitted two cases for the same customer at the same time? Or was it because the "signed declarations" were missing? Also, was it FSA rules that were broken, or was it your employer's "best practice" rules (if any rules were broken at all)? Have you received training for your job and was the procedure you have failed to follow fully explained then? You say that colleagues have submitted similar applications but that you don't wish to name them. Whilst I would say that "going with the flow" like this doesn't mitigate your alleged offence, your employer should ideally be seen to treat everyone in a like manner unless there is something in their individual staff records to indicate otherwise. I would hazard a guess that, if you want to use the actions of your colleagues at your hearing, you must be willing to name names if asked to do so.
  8. Unless there is specific provision in your contract of employment for a salary reduction of this kind, your employer can only implement a salary reduction with your agreement. If he tried to implement the change without your explicit agreement he would be in breach of the contract and, quite possibly, guilty of making an illegal deduction from your wages too if he actually paid you at the reduced rate. By virtue of the fact you say he has requested your agreement I would suggest he already realises this anyway. As has been said above, I would think very carefully before accepting the request in view of the possible ramifications regarding redundancy etc.
  9. Hi Just my twopennorth! Always remember there's no such thing as an "informal chat" with any management! Im drawn back to something in your original post when you said "...............I have been off since my manager told me in my quarterly review that I should leave or I would be 'managed out'. Since then I have been stressed and depressed. This was the final straw." If you do decide to resign you could well have a good case to take your employer to an Employment Tribunal for this remark. I suggest there's a good case to claim "constructive dismissal" here. Especially when the "office gossip" is taken into account as well as a part of an overall picture. As has been suggested by others, have nothing to do with the employer over this whole affair except in writing. Remember too that your GP is the only person in your case who can decide your fitness (or othewise) to work. The GP is independent of your employer whereas OH are at least funded by the employer, if not actually employed by them and thus have questionable impartiality. OH can advise the management, but I would suggest it takes more than a 15 minute 'phone call to assess an employee's "fitness".
  10. Hi Perhaps not unsurprisingly, what your employer (knowing who it is) wants to do is not one of the options open to him! There are specific rules governing the repayment of overpaid wages which say, amongst other things, the employer must act reasonably and stage repayment over a period of time agreed with the employee. Maybe either have a word with your union rep (if there is such a person) or speak to ACAS via their Helpline (08457 474747 and open from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday) who will be able to advise you on your specific case. They will be able to advise about your missing payslip(s) and possibly your bonus issues too. Best of luck!
  11. Crikey! Whatever you do don't tell my boss!!! Seriously though, I agree with Mr Shed's remark "I HOPE they can't do this"!! I do too, Mr Shed!!! To me it looks as though the crux of the matter is what your Contract of Employment says. Unless there is specific provision in it for the frequency of your pay-day to be altered in this way or you have agreed to a change in this, then any unilateral action by your employer to impose the change is almosy certainly a breach of contract and thus more than likely to be un-enforceable. A change in a Contract of Employment, (and certainly one as significant as this), must be agreed in advance of its implementation by the employee(s) affected. It's not unknown for a new Contract to be issued as well. A call to ACAS on 08457 474747 might be helpful, the line is open from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday I believe. Best of luck!
  12. I can find nothing covering a reduction in working hours during a period of consultation. To be honest, I think it could be argued that it may be that a reduction in hours may well signify something more than redundancy. As a general rule though any alteration in working hours can be unlawful unless the Contract of Employment and/or Company Handbook allows for this in some way with a clause/section specifically covering alterations in working hours. I suggest your husband reads his Contract/Company Handbook carefully and if nothing is mentioned the employer is quite probably in breach of contract. On the more general question of redundancy this link may be helpful: Redundancy: Introduction : Directgov - Employment Sorry I can't help more.
  13. In addition to the link above, this will also be useful for your daughter: Your rights if your employer is insolvent : Directgov - Employment
  14. Whilst I've never heard of a timescale for accepting voluntary redundancy, I would suspect the reasons for seeking volunteers may well have been satisfied as far as the employer is concerned after almost a year has elapsed. Don't be too surprised if you're "out of time" on this one.
  15. Whilst I agree with what's been said above, the thought of possible "Constructive Dismissal" also occurs to me in view of the comments you make right at the end of your initial post. You say "Also worth mentioning I was also told a number of weeks ago they had a CV in from someone they thought would be ideal for my job and also that if I handed my notice in that all charges would be dropped but they wouldn't pay my notice". Having that remark made to you seems to sugest to me that a decison to dismiss you has either already been taken, or certainly seriously discussed at any rate. If I was you would take advantage of the chance to delay the meeting, along the lines suggested by diskmandave, for a week (assuming you are contracted for a five-day-week remember you can ask for a 5 working day postponement) to give you a chance to get advice from not only ACAS, but also the professional advice (or, if you are a member, trade union advice) I would also suggest you seek. Whatever you do though, don't go into a meeting un-accompanied. I strongly suggest you do not attend any meeting unless you are accompanied by either a (trustworthy) colleagus, or a "friend". On the face of it your employer does seem to be treading dangerous water if they are not to face either Constructive Dismissal or Unfair Dismissal allegations against them. I would also question whether the initial "investigation meeting" was fair insofar as you were given no prior warning of it to provide any defence or explanation.
  • Create New...