Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 
        • 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
  • Recommended Topics

"snow day" payments


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2195 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

hi there,

 

i'm having an issue at work about payment for "snowdays", back in january.

 

i work in a private boarding school as a lunchtime supervisor. back when we had a day of snow there were members of our dept. that obviously couldn't get into work. we don't get paid for sick days or days off so no one was expecting payment, and we know that the employer doesn't have to pay them

 

as a sign of generosity the headmaster agreed that we would all be paid for the one day that we couldn't get in. lovely :)

 

until, our dept. manager said that although the headmaster has agreed this, it is down to the managers how they implement it. so our lovely manager decided that although we would be physically paid for the day, he sees it fair that we would owe half the hours in time.

 

now most of us that this affected was us part-timers, we work school hours (9-3), we have kids, the dept. is often short staffed and we make up that shortfall in overtime. many work weekends etc. so to owe those hours in time is quite hard to fit in, when many are already counting on the overtime to bump up our wages (though i know this is our own personal issues and not to do with the school).

 

no other dept. has done this to their staff. everything in the school is in house, so we're not just talking teachers, but cleaners, matrons, plumbers, maintenance, electricians, sports hall staff.....and none did this, they gave the pay freely and happily.

 

so i made a few enquiries and found out that it's legal for them to do this....i could have made a fuss about how it effects women because of the nature of the hours and those who couldn't get in...but i don't really want to go down that route as i don't believe it was done with sexism in mind.

 

i did have a meeting with my manager, as i'd been moaning for the week (not the correct way to handle things i know :/ ). his explanation was that the head had said how each manager implements it, and that as a dept we get a lot of perks....which we do, we get to go home early if boys aren't there, take food home etc. but every dept has it's perks, be it more breaks, use of equipment, drinks etc. when i pressed him on his decision he said that if i was to make a fuss then he would play by the rule book and we would not have any perks. i see this as a threat...essentially that it would be my fault that the whole dept loses out.

 

anyhow, we're 4 months down the line, we've been paid and our manager hasn't yet claimed back half the hours. yesterday, we were called into a meeting where it was then announced that we don't have to make up the hours, but he will take half the pay back that we received in our next pay packet, which is next week.

 

so the main question is, can he deduct the pay after it has already been received, esp. with a week's notice. people have budgeted for next month and this will effect their households.

 

we have chefs in the kitchen, none of those have attended our meetings, this has led me to wonder if they are getting the same treatment...am i legally entitled to know what agreement has been reached with them? i want to know if it is a dept. issue or just one for the lunchtime supervisors, unfair treatment within the dept maybe?

 

if i want to get spiteful and go down the sexism route, is this possible? there is one man that is affected by this, so it's not "all" women.

 

thanks for your help (in advance) and sorry for the long story but i wanted to get as much info as possible

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it is lawful to make a deduction from salary is a matter of contract, not law. The law says that employers can make deductions from salary, but that they must be empowered to do so by a written agreement, which is generally included in the contract. So you will need to check your contact.

 

On the wider issue, I can see no evidence that this has anything whatsoever to do with your gender. And no it is none of your business what has or hasn't been agreed with others.

 

I think that you are ignoring a large number of red flags here. If you wish to do so, fine, but if that is the case, please ensure that you start doing things formally and properly. Also be aware that there will almost certainly be consequences. Your employer didn't have to pay anyone for failing to attend work, snow or not. There are no such things as snow days, just as there are no such things as sun days! As a consequence of deciding to do so they have now got to contend with staff moaning. So you can almost certainly guarantee that there will be no further payments due to adverse weather conditions, for anyone. If it causes this much trouble giving them, the employer may as well stick by the letter of the law and NOT give them at all. It would appear that there are a lot more "letters of the law" that they might stick by - and they are telling you they will! No more perks for anyone. Please remember that when that happens you will be immensely unpopular with a lot of people, and not just your employer.

 

The manager had the authority to decide how to apply the policy, and whether it was " fair" in your eyes want a factor they had to apply. But if you didn't think it fair, there's a proper system of handing complaints and disputes. I very much doubt, at this stage, that anything is likely to stop the employer rethinking whether they ever pay staff again for such circumstances if it's going to result in this amount of trouble for them. They almost certainly will refuse to do it in future if people start lobbing discrimination complaints around. Possibly alongside removing perks for everyone too.

 

If you wish to continue this fight, then Use the grievance procedures to make a REASONED and logical argument about the circumstances. Start by checking your contract to see if there is a right to make deductions in there. Ask, don't demand . Set out a logical explanation of why you think this is unfair in comparison to the treatment of other staff overall, possibly suggest a solution that allows both sides to feel they have got somewhere, but don't start making threats that you can't substantiate or action. That might get you to a position where this can be resolved this time without significant further loss to your colleagues - but that may only be a short term gain, so I'd work on building bridges and repairing what is very obvious damage to the relationship with the employer now. Otherwise, snow days pay and perks will all be out of the window.

Edited by sangie5952
Petulant comments removed
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, thanks for the reply.

 

i can be hot headed and i'm trying to do this in far more reasoned manner now....hence seeking other advice other than what i see as fair, because that's not necessarily the law.

 

i know they don't have to pay for "snowdays", that it's not really a thing...i mentioned that i know that. it was just a bonus....which was from the headmaster, it was then our manager who decided that we would owe those hours....which i know they are entitled to do. i doubt the headmaster even knows any of this is a problem.

 

my issue lies with them now changing their minds about owing the hours and deducting the money with a only a weeks notice (we get paid monthly). the payroll has already gone through and so this must have been arranged before even telling us.

 

i don't really want to go down a sexism route, like i said, it wasn't done with that in mind, i was advised that could be a possible route. that's me just thinking angrily...sorry! i just wanted to see if anyone else agreed with that route. i'll forget that one! also if i don't see it as a factor, i'd find it very hard to fight that corner.

 

and about the chefs, again, i was just wondering. so that's out too. i will probably be able to get information through colleagues anyway, if i felt the need to aid our case.

 

i checked my contract after writing my post yesterday, i also checked our staff handbook and procedures. there is no mention of deducting pay.

 

i also did a bit of reading on the government sites etc. and was reading about what you have mentioned that deductions can be made under certain circumstances. i don't think those have necessarily been met...

 

*the reason i think it's unlawful deduction is because we agreed to make up those hours as per his request. that did not happen, not by us, but by them not deducting the money or arranging to do so with us. he has now changed what was agreed. we have had no date in which to make the time up or told that if we didn't the money would be deducted by such and such date. we have nothing in writing confirming any dates or amounts. they have now deducted the money and we have had no chance to agree or disagree with the new arrangement, it was just put upon us.*

 

as for taking it further, i have pretty broad shoulders, the other 5 people it effects also agree that they want to. i do want it highlighted officially that we are not happy with the way things have happened. as for the perks, we only get them because it suits the managers to go home early, if they didn't want to go, we would be staying for the full time, same as some of the other perks, it's them who benefit the most from them. it's literally the principle of the matter. so the grievance procedure is the way to go, as you suggest.

 

as for rebuilding bridges with my manager. no, that's not gonna happen, due to other things that have occurred over the snow day, it's irrelevant to any laws, so i won't bore you with all the details, but it involved the headmaster buying a crate of beer for those who did make it in but our manager decided not to share it out. so whether or not the law applies, i see him as a thief. all respect has gone and i have no interest in him. i will keep things civil for the sake of the workplace and that's it.

 

the part that i have put * next to....does that sound more reasoned to you, could i write something along those similar lines?

 

thanks again

Edited by hubbub
Link to post
Share on other sites

My honest opinion? It's probably too late, but I'd recommend joining a union. All of you. Because I don't see this ending happily at all, and it's only a matter of time.... Your colleagues may be the exception to the rule, but it is pretty common for colleagues to be all in favour of one person fighting their battle for them, until it comes to the crunch. When the crunch comes, they have generally never met you and have no idea what you are on about.

 

Yes, that would be your argument, the bit you highlighted. And you do it as a formal grievance - not a moan.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on your managers side. Or your employers - and I think this is now beyond just your manager because I don't think they could authorise a deduction from payroll without the knowledge of others in management. But you have to be better than them - in all respects. You have to box smarter. You have to use the system. And you need to know when to pick your battles. And if you stand alone and outside a union, you need to be very, very careful. Employers are patient. And they have the ultimate weapon - the money you need to live on. They can always, always find a way of fairly dismissing you if they set their mind to it. And they can wait until they have the grounds tied up. You'll tell me they'll never find anything because you don't do anything wrong. They'll find it. They always do when they look. Nobody is that squeaky clean, and an employer could sack Mother Theresa if they set their minds to it!

 

Never forget that, and be sure it's a price you are willing to pay. Because if your colleagues stand up with you, that's a bonus. But don't depend on it. Most often they'll let you take the fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was stupid in not joining a union sooner, we're in a small town and my manager happens to be a friend of friends etc. we've socialised with him at parties. i trusted him, thought he was decent and joining a union didn't seem a priority. i'm so angry at myself. i have joined now, but obviously it's after the dispute has started.

 

don't worry, i don't think many people would see the way he has handled it to be, at least, fair. i understand that it's your role on here to tell us as you see it, you've the experience and i'm happy to take your advice or to ignore it and not think that you are wrong. you've only been reaffirming the worries that i do have. i also question myself as after this, i will be seeking other employment, i don't want to cause a load of hassle and then just leave everyone else to deal with the repercussions. i'm starting an access course in september to start to get into social work. i certainly have the passion and inclination for it :) i have an escape plan! but the others don't :(

 

one of our group is a member of a union, she arranged a meeting with the rep after work today, i don't know until tomorrow what he's got to say about it. but as i understand they represent their own member, i am hoping that if the union takes this up it's not going to be all on me....and even if only representing her, and i stay out of it, it will highlight that our manager has not followed correct procedure and that's the main thing that i want. for it to be noted and for others, higher than him to know what he really thinks of us....half of what our headmaster does!.

 

we have many people in our dept that aren't capable of fighting back and don't have the courage or knowledge to know how to. i've not done a great job with this problem as i was so angry....however, i have helped make changes to the workplace in the past through highlighting certain issues and even the manager is aware and agrees that things weren't right for sometime in how some colleagues were treated/taken advantage of.

 

working in a private school is quite hard for me. and although we do have union representation, i have been seeking my own advice as i don't know how unions exactly work and esp. in the environment i work in (we are worried about them closing ranks) and to be honest, i find it all very interesting, hence a start of an actual career.

 

i really appreciate your advice and i think the work you all do on this site is something to be commended. folk on other threads have helped me with debt and some other bits and pieces, basically helped get me out of a right mess. i'm so grateful for that.

 

i'll be back once i know what the union rep says, and see if it all tallies up or not and then talk to my colleagues and decide where to go

 

thanks to you all

Link to post
Share on other sites

when i said closing ranks...i don't mean that he won't be helping us, if he says similar to what you have and i hadn't sought your advice, i would be thinking the worst of him and i don't want to do that...i want to see if what different people say matches up to get the best perspective

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understood that comment.

 

In the end, people forget that a union is only as strong as its members. As you have discovered, the law is not much of a protection except in regard to some of the worst excesses of employers. And not everyone would agree with me, but that's as it should be expected! The law won't ever really protect workers. This is a capitalist society, employers operate to capitalist principles, and if anyone expects the law to put people before profit in a capitalist society then I would regard them as deluded. Unless employees are prepared to fight back collectively, nobody, including union officials, can do it for them. That's why union officials are often easily picked off by employers. Most people are happy to let someone else did the fighting for them, provided they don't have to do anything and aren't expected to put their own jobs on the line. And I get that. I can see why they do that. I don't agree that people should act like that, but I'm a realist and not a dreamer. I'm pleasantly surprised by the unexpected, but not expecting it! Just be careful that you remember that fact, because after you charge into the China Shop, they'll know you are a bull and not many employers like bulls! Never unknowingly put on the line what you can't afford to lose. And never act out of emotion, because that will make you do something stupid. If this situation had been rationally approached from the beginning, there'd possibly have been a better outcome. And without hackles being raised. This has got out of control already, and it's hard to see how it gets back under control without potential negative outcomes that could have been avoided. Cool heads prevail. There's a reason lawyers shouldn't represent themselves - because they also get too personal about things. Take the emotions out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you just been for a quiet cup of tea with the headmaster to make him aware of the difference between what he says, and what is really happening?

 

If you have and he isn't bothered you need to let it go. But if he doesn't know it's worth a shot.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be worth you and your colleagues joining the union if you plan to stay with the employer or in the sector. We see a lot of people here who join the union once they start having problems, rather than seeing it as for the long term. In a way, it's like insuring your car after an accident and then expecting help.

 

 

I hope the union rep will help their member, but it seems a bit mean [to me anyway] to expect them to help people who aren't members.

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your wise words sangie, i agree and think the same with all you have said....this whole thing was emotional for me as i saw it as a personal attack from someone i knew and liked. so lots of lessons learned through this for me. and about the union, i am so pro-union and always had the intention to join, i've always thought of it as an insurance too. just something i didn't get round to. i know that they only represent their members, but i had been advised that sometimes they can sometimes act for a collective, but that's down to them. agghhhhh. woody guthrie would not be proud of me! i'm not proud of me.

 

i have thought about going to the headmaster, at first through anonymous letter, but it'd be so obvious it'd have been me, and if i was the headmaster i don't think i would be very understanding with an anonymous letter. so thought about a meeting and decided that i would do that when the time comes for me to leave. i'll tell him why i am leaving (and about the beers he bought with his own cash in sainsbury's, didn't even come into our stores to get them!)

 

so, the other lady had her meeting with the rep, and he seems to think that there is a case to be had, especially as they are deducting the money so late and with no notice, when they've had ample opportunity to do so in the last few months. he's going to try and keep her name out of the issue, but she understands that if push comes to shove, then she's willing to go forward and do what needs to be done, she's got broad shoulders too. he's gonna gather the facts and then approach our manager. she wants me to stand back and see what happens, so that's what i'll do. i think this way will also work in our favour as they know what i'm like and they will suddenly realise i'm not the only one who is willing to fight back on occasion. we've also reached half term, so that will give some breathing space while this happens. the rep has said they will have another meeting after half term.

 

so it all seems fairly positive. as i said before, i think if we all play by the book then it will hurt the managers before us. they won't be able to rely on us to keep the dept. running when short staffed (which is always) through overtime, they won't be able to hold functions, which we all cover as extra, without getting in agency staff. they won't be able to go home early, or get paid for the days we do activities on during the holidays. so they will also need to think very carefully about the decisions that they make. what will be will be. it's not my fight anymore for now...i'm just glad to know that i was right in thinking that what he has done isn't fair and could be going beyond what they're allowed to do.

 

thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...