No pay for work i did!!!

[Jamesx81x]

Hi

 

I took a part time job as a driver for some extra money while i started my new job. I only did 3 days with them as i just found it impossible to work for them.

 

All my bank details and P45 etc was given to them when i started and we had to fill a time sheet out for the hours we did. Today i should of been paid £100 for the work i did but have received nothing.

 

I am putting this down to the fact that i walked out after 3 days but surely they cannot get away with not paying.?

 

Other than arguing the toss with them over it what other steps can i take to claim the money i have earnt and is there anyone i can report them to?

 

Thanks guys

[gizmo111]

Is this with an agency? have you asked them where your pay is?

[Jamesx81x]

No its for an actual company. They are trying to make out as i walked out they are not paying me but i beg to differ. I did 3 days work so i want 3 days pay.

 

Thanks

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Did you sign anything that you would give notice to quit?

 

Did you sign anything or receive any letters or documents, such as a job offer?

[Jamesx81x]

Only thing i signed was a form with all my details on to confirm they were correct. The job offer was verbal and did not sign any contract.

 

There was no notice period that i was bound to, just a 2 bit firm i couldnt work for so walked out and they have now decided not to give me what i am owed.

 

Thanks

[Sidewinder]

The contract is academic. You are entitled to pay for the work carried out and are protected by law. To not pay your wages is classed as an unlawful deduction (unless agreed in writing beforehand).

 

Your employer could sue you to recover the wages if your walking out caused him financial loss, but he still has to pay you the money in the first instance. You should write in the first instance and ask for the money to be paid as soon as possible and in any case before a deadline of xxxxx. Send the letter Recorded or Registered and if that fails your next step would be a Letter Before Action, giving notice of your intention to recover the money through a Tribunal.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Yes, I've worked as a driver for a numpty who was a smart mouth and tried to swindle me too.

 

One thing to be careful of-if you have no real proof that you did work there for 3 days then it may be difficult to prove to a court.

 

I wouldn't have thought he got round to contacting HMRC or anyone else other than his insurers.

 

Is there any way you can prove you did actually work there? A witness etc?

 

Can you clarify the above please?

 

He owes you 3 days pay and he can't just not pay you. You didn't need to give any notice.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

The contract is academic. You are entitled to pay for the work carried out and are protected by law. To not pay your wages is classed as an unlawful deduction (unless agreed in writing beforehand).

 

Your employer could sue you to recover the wages if your walking out caused him financial loss, but he still has to pay you the money in the first instance. You should write in the first instance and ask for the money to be paid as soon as possible and in any case before a deadline of xxxxx. Send the letter Recorded or Registered and if that fails your next step would be a Letter Before Action, giving notice of your intention to recover the money through a Tribunal.

 

I'd beg to differ sidewinder.

 

As he needn't have given statutory notice he may still have had to give contractual notice. One can only find this out if one asks.

 

As it is, no written contract exists, however, the OP now has to rely on a verbal agreement that he even worked there, let alone is owed 3 days pay.

 

If the employer is a wise guy he may well just say the OP never worked there.

 

I'm trying to establish strength rather than remedy at this point.

[Sidewinder]

I'd beg to differ sidewinder.

 

As he needn't have given statutory notice he may still have had to give contractual notice. One can only find this out if one asks.

 

As it is, no written contract exists, however, the OP now has to rely on a verbal agreement that he even worked there, let alone is owed 3 days pay.

 

If the employer is a wise guy he may well just say the OP never worked there.

 

I'm trying to establish strength rather than remedy at this point.

 

Point taken - the employer could indeed deny ever having taken the OP on. Assuming that the relationship is acknowledged however, with less than a month's service and in the absence of a contract, the notice due to the employer is a 'reasonable period' (usually considered a week). Even if the notice given is 'unreasonable' (or in this case none at all), the employer is not entitled to withold wages unless he can prove that a written agreement exists for him to do so.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Point taken - the employer could indeed deny ever having taken the OP on. Assuming that the relationship is acknowledged however, with less than a month's service and in the absence of a contract, the notice due to the employer is a 'reasonable period' (usually considered a week). Even if the notice given is 'unreasonable' (or in this case none at all), the employer is not entitled to withold wages unless he can prove that a written agreement exists for him to do so.

 

Continuing my earlier post (and a further response to this subsequant post)-

 

1 It is always better to determine rather than assume in litigation.

 

In this case, the OP has worked part-time for three days, without any written contract, walked out on the third day and has not been paid for those three days. The payment should have been with him today, probably by bank transfer as he says he gave his bank details to his employer, but there was no payment.

 

The OP feels he was not paid today as he thinks because he walked out after three days they will not pay him at all.

 

That is the OP's contention.

 

2 The OP should contact his ex-employer about this missing payment. The guy worked just three days, has never had any form of prior payment from them so cannot determine if this is a one off or a regular occurrence.

 

The OP should contact the employer to ask why he has not been paid. It would be entirely reasonable for the employer to have decided to have posted a cheque to the OP instead, after all, the employer will not be paying the OP by bank transfer in the future.

 

Note, first class mail can take up to 15 working days.

 

3 It is of vital importance to discover if any contract was signed on engagement to determine what was binding.

 

To dismiss this most basic significance as 'academic' is quite wrong.

 

However, a verbal contract, as appears to have happened with the case here, is as binding as a written one although it is obviously more difficult to prove.

 

This is the problem for the OP for many reasons.

 

a The employer may say he never employed him. Which is why I have asked of tangible proof of engagement. (A written contract)

 

b The employer may say he did in fact employ him part-time, but only for 5 hours a week and not for 25 hours (if this was the case). Only by verbal representations, due to a lack of a contract, who is to say the employer would be lying?

 

c That the employer insisted, verbally, on a week's notice but the OP walked after 3 days.

 

d etc, etc, etc

 

4 The OP need not give a 'reasonable period of notice' as you suggest just because he worked for less than a month.

 

He was employed as a driver.

 

What if he decided he had to finish with immediate effect as he felt the vehicle he was driving was unsafe, maybe the brakes were suspect, and he walked out?

 

Are you suggesting the OP has to work a 'reasonable notice,' even ignoring the fact that he needs not work a notice anyway, in this scenario?

 

Important! An employer can fire you within a month with no statutory notice-an employee can quit in this time frame too!!!

 

5 The employer would have next to zero chance of suing the OP for quitting his job after 3 days 'due to financial loss.' Just as the OP would have no chance of suing for the same if he had been sacked after just 3 days. (Unless some discrimination etc took place of course).

 

In any case, to do this, the employer would need to recognise the OP as an...employee! See the problem here?

 

Before advising on a remedy it is always wise to discover what the problem actually is.

 

A cough tablet is not much good for a broken leg.

[Jamesx81x]

Thank you for the information so far its been great.

 

I we will see how far i get with it by next week and keep you posted on the outcome.

 

Thanks

[Sidewinder]

Continuing my earlier post (and a further response to this subsequant post)-

 

1 It is always better to determine rather than assume in litigation.

 

The OP had already stated "They are trying to make out as i walked out they are not paying me...". That was not an assumption - the OP had already determined that the employer was refusing to pay him.

 

In this case, the OP has worked part-time for three days, without any written contract, walked out on the third day and has not been paid for those three days. The payment should have been with him today, probably by bank transfer as he says he gave his bank details to his employer, but there was no payment.

 

The OP feels he was not paid today as he thinks because he walked out after three days they will not pay him at all.

 

That is the OP's contention.

 

No - the OP stated that they were refusing to pay him

 

2 The OP should contact his ex-employer about this missing payment. The guy worked just three days, has never had any form of prior payment from them so cannot determine if this is a one off or a regular occurrence.

 

The OP should contact the employer to ask why he has not been paid. It would be entirely reasonable for the employer to have decided to have posted a cheque to the OP instead, after all, the employer will not be paying the OP by bank transfer in the future.

 

Note, first class mail can take up to 15 working days.

 

Once again - the OP stated that they were refusing to pay him as he had walked out. He has therefore already contacted them and was told this so why should he ask again why he has not been paid - surely he would receive the same answer? The OP asked what else he could do apart from argue the toss.

 

3 It is of vital importance to discover if any contract was signed on engagement to determine what was binding.

 

But the OP had already answered this in response to your initial question. "Only thing i signed was a form with all my details on to confirm they were correct. The job offer was verbal and did not sign any contract"

 

To dismiss this most basic significance as 'academic' is quite wrong.

 

Why? - the employer has witheld wages. This is contrary to the Employment Rights Act and is an absolute right irrespective of length of service. The OP had already stated that no written contract existed. Any agreement for a deduction in wages can only be in writing - it cannot be a part of any verbal or implied contract term.

 

However, a verbal contract, as appears to have happened with the case here, is as binding as a written one although it is obviously more difficult to prove.

 

A verbal contract has absolutely no relevance to protection from an unlawful deduction. The employer simply cannot do it unless permission is given in writing.

 

This is the problem for the OP for many reasons.

 

a The employer may say he never employed him. Which is why I have asked of tangible proof of engagement. (A written contract)

 

Already conceded - the employer's only reason not to pay wages would be to say that he never actually employed the OP. A very risky proposition given that such a fraud would involve other workers, customers to whom the OP delivered etc

 

b The employer may say he did in fact employ him part-time, but only for 5 hours a week and not for 25 hours (if this was the case). Only by verbal representations, due to a lack of a contract, who is to say the employer would be lying?

 

The timesheet completed by the OP would be a legal document and the employer would either have to falsify it or 'lose' it.

 

c That the employer insisted, verbally, on a week's notice but the OP walked after 3 days.

 

The employer can 'insist' on whatever he likes, but the law only requires a minimum period of notice on either side after one month's service has been completed. Until that point the notice required should be 'reasonable' but this is not defined in law.

 

d etc, etc, etc

 

Have no idea what the other considerations might be?

 

4 The OP need not give a 'reasonable period of notice' as you suggest just because he worked for less than a month.

 

The law requires workers with one month's service to give or be entitled to receive at least one weeks notice. Prior to one months service it need only be 'reasonable'. The same consideration should be given to the employer.

 

He was employed as a driver.

 

What if he decided he had to finish with immediate effect as he felt the vehicle he was driving was unsafe, maybe the brakes were suspect, and he walked out?

 

Then one would believe that he would have mentioned this rather than that he just found it 'impossible to work for them'?

 

Are you suggesting the OP has to work a 'reasonable notice,' even ignoring the fact that he needs not work a notice anyway, in this scenario?

 

If he was being required to drive a dangerous vehicle or work under similarly unsafe conditions then to give no notice would be reasonable under those circumstances. He would also be afforded protection not only by the ERA but also HSAWA.

 

Important! An employer can fire you within a month with no statutory notice-an employee can quit in this time frame too!!!

Absolutely agree.

 

5 The employer would have next to zero chance of suing the OP for quitting his job after 3 days 'due to financial loss.' Just as the OP would have no chance of suing for the same if he had been sacked after just 3 days. (Unless some discrimination etc took place of course).

 

Agree again, but this is the employer's only lawful course of action if he wants to withold the wages due to the OP. He cannot take the law into his own hands and refuse to pay.

 

In any case, to do this, the employer would need to recognise the OP as an...employee! See the problem here?

 

Back to the question of whether the employer is willing to add fraud to the breach of the ERA. Once established that the employer asked the OP to carry out work as a driver in return for a wage, then status as an 'employee' is automatic.

 

Before advising on a remedy it is always wise to discover what the problem actually is.

 

Couldn't agree more and my responses were specifically to the OP's points that a) "surely they cannot get away with not paying.?" and b) "Other than arguing the toss with them over it what other steps can i take to claim the money i have earnt and is there anyone i can report them to?". This based on the already established facts that he had already asked for the money and had been refused, that he had worked there for 3 days and that there was only a verbal agreement in place.

 

Granted the employer could lie about ever having employed the OP, he could lie about the agreed rate of pay even if he conceded that he had, but this could be tested against rates customarily paid to others and would still have to be at least the Minimum Wage in any case. The fact is though that barring this, he has absolutely no lawful reason to withold the OP's payment. The advice therefore remains that having been refused once he should now demand the money and if neccessary issue an LBA in order to obtain what is due to him.

 

 

A cough tablet is not much good for a broken leg.

 

No - but then neither is Plaster of Paris alone if surgery would fix the leg quicker![/Quote]

 

..

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Point taken - the employer could indeed deny ever having taken the OP on. Assuming that the relationship is acknowledged however,

 

The OP had already stated "They are trying to make out as i walked out they are not paying me...". That was not an assumption - the OP had already determined that the employer was refusing to pay him.

 

Your original assumption was based on a specefic ie the assumption 'that a relationship is acknowledged.' Which is what I refered to and to which you recognised.

 

You have now decided that your statement 'assuming that the relationship is acknowledged...' now also refers to the refusal of pay.

 

Ignoring that, the employer has seemingly refused to pay the OP because he walked out.

 

In my very first post I asked for what written documents the OP has had, not just a written contract, but for anything at all.

 

The OP replied that nothing other than giving his details, such as his bank details, were given to the employer.

 

Therefore, it was established that everything at issue with the OP's situation is based on verbal representations. With the lack of any written documents, which the OP has already stated, then he must have been told by his employer that he will not be getting paid either by telephone, face to face or a third party verbally.

 

As you are no doubt aware to base any litigation just on verbals is a lot more difficult than having everything in writing.

 

My advice to the OP is simply to point this out. Your advice is upon remedy.

 

I am highlighting the possible difficulties in achieving the remedy.

 

Unless the OP can prove enough to a court or tribunal his case, and with the arguments of the employer, (where, for instance the employer could simply state he worked 5 hours a week and not 25, for example), then talk of remedy is premature.

 

Why? - the employer has witheld wages. This is contrary to the Employment Rights Act and is an absolute right irrespective of length of service. The OP had already stated that no written contract existed. Any agreement for a deduction in wages can only be in writing - it cannot be a part of any verbal or implied contract term.

 

As above, for this the OP has to state his case and the strength of it.

 

I have previously pointed out that the employer, if devious enough, could just deny even employing the OP.

 

Again, the court has to decide on a case based on verbal representaions. If they choose to believe a devious employer then The Employment Rights Act you have quoted would be academic.

 

Please re-read my previous posts.

 

 

A verbal contract has absolutely no relevance to protection from an unlawful deduction. The employer simply cannot do it unless permission is given in writing.

 

I didn't state that this is the case. I pointed out the above-the OP needs to convince a court he was even employed in the first place.

 

He then needs to convince a court that he worked x amount of hours for 3 days.

 

He then has to convince a court that there was no contractual notice period.

 

etc, etc.

 

Can you not see the potential pitfalls when it is one word against another?

 

Again, your remedies all become academic unless he can convince the court he was even employed.

 

 

Already conceded - the employer's only reason not to pay wages would be to say that he never actually employed the OP. A very risky proposition given that such a fraud would involve other workers, customers to whom the OP delivered etc

 

 

How do you know this?

 

When did the OP say there were other drivers or workers? Or that he delivered to customers?

 

Even if there was, would they come forward to witness for a guy who worked there for 3 days or to their employer who pays their wages?

 

What if there were no customers and he was just driving from one employment business address to another?

 

Assumptions, just like yours.

 

The timesheet completed by the OP would be a legal document and the employer would either have to falsify it or 'lose' it.

 

A Minimum Wage complaint I filed against an employer was not upheld as this very thing happened, as in documents were falsified.

 

The employer replaced all the timesheets that would have shown excessive hours of 60+ per week worked by me for 3 months and replaced them with others that showed barely a 40 hour week.

 

This was accepted by the Compliance Officer.

 

The law requires workers with one month's service to give or be entitled to receive at least one weeks notice. Prior to one months service it need only be 'reasonable'. The same consideration should be given to the employer.

 

The reason why no statutory notice is required by law for less than one months service is because that is what the law states.

 

'No notice' is not 'reasonable notice.'

 

Unless the OP simply abandoned the vehicle on a hard shoulder and quit, thus 'acting unreasonably,' then there is no requirement to do anything else. He was free to quit.

 

Don't get confused with this.

 

Then one would believe that he would have mentioned this rather than that he just found it 'impossible to work for them'?

 

Did you ask the OP this? Did you ask why it was impossible?

 

Back to the question of whether the employer is willing to add fraud to the breach of the ERA. Once established that the employer asked the OP to carry out work as a driver in return for a wage, then status as an 'employee' is automatic.

 

Again, which is why my previous posts were attemting to do this.

 

Which should have been your aim rather than remedy and what laws have been broken.

 

Unable to establish this very basic fact renders anything else you have posted as by the by.

 

Before advising on a remedy it is always wise to discover what the problem actually is.

 

Couldn't agree more and my responses were specifically to the OP's points that a) "surely they cannot get away with not paying.?" and b) "Other than arguing the toss with them over it what other steps can i take to claim the money i have earnt and is there anyone i can report them to?". This based on the already established facts that he had already asked for the money and had been refused, that he had worked there for 3 days and that there was only a verbal agreement in place.

 

Granted the employer could lie about ever having employed the OP, he could lie about the agreed rate of pay even if he conceded that he had, but this could be tested against rates customarily paid to others and would still have to be at least the Minimum Wage in any case. The fact is though that barring this, he has absolutely no lawful reason to withold the OP's payment. The advice therefore remains that having been refused once he should now demand the money and if neccessary issue an LBA in order to obtain what is due to him.

 

 

And what is clear is that the OP has issues where he can only rely on verbal representations to mitigate, as does the employer.

 

The very first test for a tribunal will be whether the OP was in fact an employee.

 

If this is successful then the hours worked need to be established. Then the employer may say a contractual notice period was agreed and he may counter sue.

 

Once again, can you not see the potential problems here if dealing with a devious employer with verbal agreements?

 

Sometimes one is wronged but the law isn't always sympathetic.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi,

Any more news

Regards

Andy

[paulgmb]

Often on a trial period there is no notice period on either party.

[hanzo]

Statutory notice periods only kick in after 1 month.

I quite like the legal debate above, but if it were me I would just go down the small claims route. An oral contract is still actionable in county court and there's not the whole grievance procedure schenannigans that accompanies tribunal litigation.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Often on a trial period there is no notice period on either party.

 

Yes, maybe sidewinder will realise this.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Statutory notice periods only kick in after 1 month.

 

Yes, maybe sidewinder will also realise this!