Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Internal Recruitment Processes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3558 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good evening everyone,

 

I'm having a small trouble with work at the moment, I applied for a managers position internally and was told that I have an outstanding absence trigger.

 

An absence trigger is where I have had 3 occasions of sickness within 3 months and I can not have a further sick day within the following 6 months.

 

What my issue is here is that the recruitment policy at the time I applied only advised "Aspects which may be taken into consideration are attendance, timekeeping and performance ". I appear to have kicked up a fuss and now the policy has been changed to "All lateness and absence triggers must have been passed before applying for an internal role".

 

The footer at the bottom of both documents both say Version 2.0 and are dated March 2014. I belive this is the same to deliberately mislead anyone going into the document.

 

Please can you let me know your thoughts.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that whichever way the policy is written could equally apply to your situation.

 

Aspects which may be taken into consideration are attendance, timekeeping and performance[/Quote]

 

They may well state that they took your absence record into consideration and dismissed your application on that basis, and having asked for clarification on that it looks as though they have clarified and strengthened that particular clause. You could I suppose counter that if the circumstances were being considered thoroughly, that with only two weeks left before the trigger was cancelled the decision to bar you from applying was unduly harsh.

 

A bit underhand and certainly unfortunate, but not necessarily unlawful. May be worth getting copies of both pre and post amendment and raise a grievance that a clause which forms part of the contract appears to have been changed without being notified, and that the date has been left unchanged to make the amendment appear less recent than it actually was. The downside of course will be that this is unlikely to get you the promotion and may well scupper chances in future.

 

It seems a bit petty to prevent you applying for promotion just on that basis.....are you sure there weren't any other factors and the absence record was just a convenient excuse?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the recruitment policy incorporated in the contract of employment?

 

Of course the employer can change their recruitment policy should they so wish and may well have done so as a consequence of the initial issue raised by OP.

 

I would suspect the version number and operative date remaining unchanged is simply someone forgetting to change it. Cock up is far more common than conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the recruitment policy incorporated in the contract of employment?

 

I may have jumped the gun but terms like this are often found in the Employee Handbook, in which case they would form part of the T&Cs of the contract

 

Naturally in this case it may be true that these are conditions which are issued to candidates applying for internal vacancies, however the fact that the OP had ready access to the 'original version' made me suspect that the clause was drawn from some form of handbook.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it is not as simple as saying if it is in the handbook it is incorporated into the contract, it is contextual.

 

For example, one of my clients has a weighty tome called "The Rough Guide", which contains everything from the annual leave policy (which would be incorporated) to the location of nearby sandwich shops and catering facilities in relation to the main offices (which obviously would not).

 

And, of course, employers can and do revise policies although I agree they would need to draw attention to revisions.

 

That is the advice I have given for the last 10 or more years, hope I haven't got it wrong all that time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got copies of both the policy before and after the change.

 

I have recently joined the top company within our group umbrella so I truly couldn't tell you guy what my contract says as I have yet to receive it.

 

We have an employee handbook but each part is a separate document on the intranet. Which is where I have gotten my Information from so far.

 

I am due to have a meeting with my manager today in regards to this as quite a few managers have become involved with this. I couldn't tell you if they are just using my trigger as an excuse but I am don't want to take this decision lying down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it is not as simple as saying if it is in the handbook it is incorporated into the contract, it is contextual.

 

For example, one of my clients has a weighty tome called "The Rough Guide", which contains everything from the annual leave policy (which would be incorporated) to the location of nearby sandwich shops and catering facilities in relation to the main offices (which obviously would not).

 

And, of course, employers can and do revise policies although I agree they would need to draw attention to revisions.

 

That is the advice I have given for the last 10 or more years, hope I haven't got it wrong all that time!

 

There would be very little point in having a handbook if there wasn't at least an argument that it forms part of the T&C's, though. It would be non sensical for an employer to take the time to draft policies that it endeavours to follow and then ignore them completely :) context is important, though - for example an ET is much more likely to find that an enhanced redundancy policy is contractual as it conveys such a significant benefit on the employee. Conversely, an employee would be unable to mount a wrongful dismissal claim based on a lack of disciplinary procedure if the employers policy did not state it was contractual in circumstances where they were dismissed without qualifying length of service.

 

I suppose the key difference is that a breach of contract claim is unlikely to arise as a result of the staff handbook; but it would be taken into account in the wider picture, for example numerous breaches of internal policy to support a constructive dismissal claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be very little point in having a handbook if there wasn't at least an argument that it forms part of the T&C's, though. It would be non sensical for an employer to take the time to draft policies that it endeavours to follow and then ignore them completely :) context is important, though - for example an ET is much more likely to find that an enhanced redundancy policy is contractual as it conveys such a significant benefit on the employee. Conversely, an employee would be unable to mount a wrongful dismissal claim based on a lack of disciplinary procedure if the employers policy did not state it was contractual in circumstances where they were dismissed without qualifying length of service.

 

I suppose the key difference is that a breach of contract claim is unlikely to arise as a result of the staff handbook; but it would be taken into account in the wider picture, for example numerous breaches of internal policy to support a constructive dismissal claim.

 

I agree.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it does not automatically follow that everything in any handbook confers contractual rights. By your last paragraph, i think you are agreeing with me.

 

In any event, in this particular instance, there would not appear to be any breach in either the original or the clarified version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it does not automatically follow that everything in any handbook confers contractual rights. By your last paragraph, i think you are agreeing with me.

 

I was indeed - I just tend to ramble on occasion :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...