Is this legal? Please help ASAP

[mollybe]

Hi,

 

My daughter-in-law has just returned to work after maternity leave. She used to work full time but in an interview before she returned it was agreed with her boss that she should do part time hours and now works 16 hours Saturday/Sunday.

 

On Friday she was paid. She has worked 4 weekends, so 4 weeks in all and has only been paid for 1 week.

 

She rang her boss yesterday and he said that she had been paid correctly and when she queried it admitted that she hadn't.

 

He now maintains that she should have been paid 2 weeks as their payroll is to work 2 weeks in hand. She still couldn't understand why it wasn't the full 4 weeks she had worked and he says it is because she had to work another 2 weeks in hand although she did this at the beginning of her employment which would mean she was now 4 weeks behind.

 

He has now been to the bank and given her the equivalent of 1 weeks wages which he said he will claim back from expenses.

 

Is this legal, as there will be no tax or NI paid for this and she is worried that she may get into trouble for it?

 

Also, is he right in saying that she has to work another 2 weeks in hand?

 

She is finding it very difficult to get any advice as it is Saturday and she doesn't work Mon-Fri so wants to get it sorted.

[diamondgirl]

Hi Mollybe

 

Did she get a contract previously as it should list about maternity entitlement and also about returning back to work.

As she doesn't work during the week perhaps a visit to CAB will be of some help.

I'm sure someone who knows more about employment issues than I do will be along soon.

DG:)

[mollybe]

Thanks DG, I don't know what her contract says, I don't even know if she has one! It is a bit of a Mickey Mouse company, no-one seems to know what they are doing.

 

I still can't understand the having to work another 2 weeks in hand as she has never broken her emploment with them so surely the orignal 2 weeks in hand should stand.

 

They are getting really worried now as it is a substantial sum of money and they have no money for bills and baby food.

[diamondgirl]

Thanks DG, I don't know what her contract says, I don't even know if she has one! It is a bit of a Mickey Mouse company, no-one seems to know what they are doing.

 

I still can't understand the having to work another 2 weeks in hand as she has never broken her emploment with them so surely the orignal 2 weeks in hand should stand.

 

They are getting really worried now as it is a substantial sum of money and they have no money for bills and baby food.

 

It does sound a bit iffy I must admit. I personal would think that as it is a continuous employment she shouldn't have to work another 2 weeks in hand also the going to the bank and getting her another weeks pay also seem strange as she is entitled to a pay slip showing her tax and NI contributions. I think she needs more expert help with regards to this. I know maternity leave, payments and returning to work are more complex these days. The DWP website should show something about these rules it may be worth a quick look.

DG:)

[sillygirl1]

The boss doesn't understand the regulations, basically they need to be spelt out as follows.

 

When an employee goes on maternity leave and returns to the same post on reduced hours the following should happen.

 

1. The employee returns for 1 day on 'normal' hours.

2. Any accrued annual leave is taken at the 'old' rate (NOT the new one as they sometimes insist.

3. THEN on return from the accrued annual leave they start the new hours.

4. It is a CONTINUOUS contract and there is no need to work 2 weeks 'in hand' as that was done at the start of the employment.

[diamondgirl]

As I said I knew someone with employment knowledge will would be along.

 

DG:)

[mollybe]

Thank you sillygirl (I feel terrible calling you that!) I thought that was the case. He is insisting that because she is working part time now instead of full-time her contract has changed so therefore shie has in fact 'started again'. Surely if this is the case then she shoud be 'paid back' her original 2 weeks in hand. Either way he owes her the money.

[sillygirl1]

Don't worry about the name, I've learnt a lot since joining this site.

 

I used to do maternity leavers in the NHS so I do know the basic rules, the employer is breaking them - he shouldn't be doing the 'two weeks in hand' and needs to be reminded that he can be reported to thelocal trading standards people (and the tax people) for not being up on current legislation - the onus is on the employer to know these rules.

 

If he pays her back the original 'two weeks in hand' then her start date of employment changes to the day she came back from maternity leave, she won't have protection of the extra time if there is a redundancy situation. Sounds like the employer needs somebody to re-educate them on the employment rules.

[mollybe]

Okay..so I have just spoken to my son, her partner and I have got it all wrong...please bear with me.

 

When she first started to work for this company she was paid for the time she sorked, ie no weeks in arrears.

 

Before she started back after maternity leave she met with her boss and asked for part time and this was agreed.

 

He is now saying that full timers are paid no weeks in arrears ie for everything they have worked, but part-timers are paid 2 weeks in arrears.

 

Does this make a difference to everything?

[sillygirl1]

The employer is again completely incorrect. There is no reason why paying part timers 2 weeks in arrears when full timers get paid up front. I would get her to talk to the CAB now she has a child and they will write to the employer and remind them of the rules. Sounds like the employer is trying to make the rules up as they go along.

 

What sort of company is it? If it is a small company there is even more reason for them to know the rules....

[mollybe]

It is a small company but is owned by a huge national one.

 

He does make the rules up as he goes along but as she has no contract, despite repeatedly asking for one the has nothing to fall back on.

[sillygirl1]

In that case it is even more crucial to go to the CAB and ask for their advice. Current legislation states

 

"an employee must have a contract within six weeks of joining the company"

 

Has she been in touch with the head of the national company?