Jump to content


Recommended Posts

Hi Sangie,

 

thanks for that.

I / we were told about 7 years ago that we were no longer able to stay in the union that had collective bargaining powers on site.

Having spoken to the Usdaw rep today he confirms that I am able to join which is what I will do.

The rep also believes that I have a possible case under the equalities act.

 

nic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nicurro said:

Hi Sangie,

 

thanks for that.

I / we were told about 7 years ago that we were no longer able to stay in the union that had collective bargaining powers on site.

Having spoken to the Usdaw rep today he confirms that I am able to join which is what I will do.

The rep also believes that I have a possible case under the equalities act.

 

nic

And you believed that you weren't "allowed" to stay in your union? 

 

Please be aware that, retakes of what the rep says, whilst a lay rep may choose to represent you in this matter, you  will get no formal union support including legal advice and representation. Unions do not expend resource on new members who join based on the fact that they already have a problem. 

 

I am astonished, based on what you have said here, that the rep believes you have a case under the Equalities Act. They are not removing the allowance because you are disabled. They are removing the allowance based on the fact that you do not do the same work as your colleagues who receive the allowance ( and you previously said that others didn't get the allowance, so I'm unclear where these people have now appeared from) and the allowance is paid to people on call. Being disabled does not prevent anyone from being on call. In your specific situation it may prevent you from being on call, but that is not discrimination. Disability does not give the right to be paid for work that you do not do! And by arguing that approach, the rep would be agreeing the position of the employer that the allowance is paid for being on call. Otherwise, there is no argument that it is discrimination to remove it from you when it is otherwise only paid to people who are on call. As soon as they agree that is what the allowance is for, then your right to it falls! 

 

I would suggest that you discuss the approach very carefully with the union rep - once you commit to a strategy, you will be stuck with it, and the union will not be footing any bills to legally challenge the employer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be missing the point I am making, the Responsibility payment is what I/ we believed to be the old shift payment as when I/we asked about this we were told that it is correct.

The shift payment was part of TUPE.

 

No shift payment has been itemised on any payslip since the transfer.

 

The original call out allowance stopped being identified separately from my Salary around 2009/10 and became part of my salary.

 

The term Responsibility allowance appeared on our first wage slip from new employer but no shift allowance was on the payslip.

 

A new payment was introduced to cover call out which was only paid after someone had been on call for a full week.

 

No notification of changes in T’s & C’s or negotiation has taken place since the TUPE.

 

I am giving the best timeline of events that I can and so far my employer has come to the wrong conclusion twice about what I should be paid.

 

nic

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point - there is no requirement to notify a change in terms and conditions if you accept it, and the law says that by not doing anything about it in all this time, you accepted it! Same argument you are putting, but the boot is on the other foot. You are also missing the point that they don't have to come to any conclusion about it - they just have to give you the right notice that they are changing the terms and conditions. 

 

But that doesn't explain the fact that you said you were the only person who got this allowance and it TUPEd with you, and that people not getting it (everybody else) complained. Now it appears other people do get it, and they get it for a specific reason, and that reason doesn't apply to you now. It's really hard to grasp how and why the story has changed and who is complaining about you only getting an allowance that others seem to get as well!  A rep on the ground may be able to sort through these apparent anomalies better than we can depending on information that seems to conflict with itself. They know the employer and their actual terms - we are depending only on what you tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sangie , 

 

How could I object to a change in terms and conditions at the TUPE stage when the employer said that what I was paid was correct and no changes at that point in time were made?

I was made to believe that my shift allowance was still being paid but the description on my pay statement had altered.

 

nic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to make it simple. You claim that you had a shift allowance, but didn't ever question why you were being paid for a shift that you didn't work? OR you got paid for call outs, but never once considered that since you weren't working call outs you weren't entitled to that payment? OR you historically got a mysterious allowance for being more experienced which nobody else at all got, except it appears that some other people did get it because they worked call outs which you didn't. These are all explanations you have offered. They can't all be true. Without understanding which of these is true - or whether it is some other explanation entirely - it's impossible to work out what you can do. 

 

However, at another level it doesn't matter at all which is true. All they have to do is advise you that they are changing your terms, give you the required notice, and if you continue to refuse, you will have no job. You can then claim unfair dismissal. But you will have an uphill struggle because (a) you appear to have no clear idea of evidence to suggest you are entitled to this allowance in the first place, and (b) if they make the change lawfully, as I have described, it is very unlikely that a tribunal will consider it reasonable of you to demand confusion of a payment to which you are not entitled and willing to throw away your job for that allowance. 

 

Alternatively you can continue to work but only under protest, simultaneously making a claim to an employment tribunal for unlawful deductions. But toy will need to prove that the deductions are unlawful. So you will need to evidence why you are entitled to that allowance. Right now, you can't explain why you get it, never mind evidence you should.

 

I realise this is frustrating for you. But frustration is not a good motivator for sensible actions. Evidence is. Whether it's here or your union or lawyer or whatever, you need a clear line of argument and evidence to support that argument. That is not what your are presenting. 

 

I realise this is a difficult thing to grasp. Most every employee thinks that their wage is their right. It should be. That's what I think the law should say. But I am an unapologetic Marxist. The fact is that the law doesn't say that. It has all these mealy mouthed exceptions that say that your wage isn't your right. I'm stuck trying to tell you that. Not because I believe it, but because it's a fact. Your lay union rep is no doubt a lovely and committed person who cares about what they do. These days, anyone willing to be a union rep is, in my book, brave and idealistic. But those things don't add up to experienced. If your union was strong enough to do what is needed - and that is industrial action - to protect terms, then they wouldn't be talking "Equality Act". If they actually understood what the Equality Act says, they wouldn't have even mentioned it. Lay reps are the back bone of our unions. They also don't have the experience of paid officials and lawyers. Most all of us would rather a tough unionised workforce that employers won't mess with. Few people work in those places. You don't. So I can't tell you what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sangie, you were given a very simple way fo dealing with a specific propblem and you want to do anything other than use that advice and act accordingly.

Sending your employer a SAR wont help you get that problem sorted, it will just muddy the water. If they had the killer document dont you think they would have dug it out and used it already regardless of which side of the fence it fell? If there was a doc that gave you some extra rights then they would have waved it to brush away the complaints of the others and if it went against you they would have waved it at you and told you that you were getting a pay cut because....

 

Sometimes when managers retire or leave they fail to adequately pass on their paperwork so stuff gets misfiled for years or even shredded and reasons for  local decisions or terms get buried in the mists of time. Let them find the paperwork and come back to you but dont be urging them to find it as all that does is reduce  the time in which they get to  cut your pay and gives them an incentive to do so. If you  let it all go quiet they may well not even think it worth their while stirring that particular pot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The employer has now confirmed that they are removing the payment which they believe is for “call out” even though they have so far produced no evidence of documents.

They have also said that they now want occupational health to give them a report stating that I am unable to do “call out” due to my mobility issues to substantiate their decision.

I am now preparing a grievance as they are wrong in their decision and this will be a change in my contract of employment to which I have not agreed too.

I have not received a letter confirming this decision as yet.

 

nic

Edited by nicurro
Extra detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've posted the above twice, which can confuse things. Is it to do with your contract or your SAR please? Or I could merge your threads.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please merge the threads.

All merge under Contract Advice Honeybee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done that and I've removed the duplicate post.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2019 at 22:02, nicurro said:

The allowance incorporated various aspects including experience , knowledge ,   adaptability but the exact detail is not known, I am still employed under the same title but poor health has meant that my duties had to change.

 

Nic

Hold up.

 

You are NOW saying this is a shft allowance after you previous said it was a responsibility allowance?

 

Your story is changing with the wind. If you haven't bothered to keep proper documentation, really it's going to be impossible to get a case going.

 

Too inconsistent to stand up...

 


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier I never know who is reading these posts and before a decision was made I was asking for scenario advice on what they have said as they appear to be phishing from others.

 

List of items on payslips below:

 

Old employer 1st

salary + shift allowance

 

TUPE happened

 

New employer now

 

salary + responsibility allowance

 

Both allowances same amount different name.

New Call out payment introduced by new employer following their policy.

 

They now are trying to remove responsibility allowance which was shift allowance before TUPE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nicurro said:

Like I said earlier I never know who is reading these posts and before a decision was made I was asking for scenario advice on what they have said as they appear to be phishing from others.

 

"things to be honest with people about at the beginning."


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are now saying that you deliberately told us things that aren't true, but expected accurate advice, on the off chance your employer had nothing better to do than browse the internet in case you posted for advice somewhere? 

 

You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you claim it was paid for in that past. It doesn't actually matter what it was paid for at all. The question is, can the allowance be removed now.? The answer is yes! You don't have to agree to it. But you do have to take legal action to stop them. Legal action that will very probably fail anyway, and which, one way or another, is likely to lead to a breakdown of trusty and confidence so significant that you may as well paint the target on  your back now.

 

And now you say it was a shift allowance, and you no longer work that shift? Your are digging yourself a hole. That makes it a mistake you were paid it, and mistakes can be claimed back. Changing your story is digging the hole....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw that the name had changed but the payment was the same amount I asked my manager about it at least 3 times in the first 6 months to try to resolve the issue, this was the route I had to take with issues about pay. He said that it must be right and didn’t seem that it was an issue.

There were also at least 3 occasions where HR had said that they would have to stop my shift allowance as I no longer worked the required shift pattern, he defended me on each occasion by saying that he would not allow me to be penalised financially as it was at his request that I changed my shift pattern. On each occasion I also said to him that if it gets to the point where I am going to lose it I would go back to the required pattern.

Also the Union have never been advised that the shift payment was being removed and neither has it been negotiated away or have I ever received a letter advising me that they wish to remove it since TUPE happened therefore it should still be part of my T’s & C’s under the collective bargaining agreement that the Union have.

So to my knowledge no mistake of payment has been made and the so called payment they are removing does not exist.

 

Both the manager & hr person still work at the same place.

 

Could I also ask if in an investigation meeting or investigation outcome meeting there are any rights to be accompanied or to be asked if I wish for a representative with me as I was never asked and now I am being penalised with the current situation.

 

May I apologise also for any issues with my earlier posts and methods but as you may be aware I am not in a good place at the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual words said were that they would need to stop paying shift allowance due to not doing required shifts.

 

Remove was incorrect word in previous post.

 

Sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had no right to be accompanied. That right only accrues to a disciplinary or grievance hearing - this is neither.

 

And beyond that, sorry, but I give up. You aren't hearing what is said, so you need to go your own way since that is what you want to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I ask your thoughts on the below statement:

What is an Informal Meeting?

An Informal Meeting should amount to little more than a chat with your manager.

It could be that your manager has concerns about your performance, attendance or conduct, which needs discussing with you.

Or you could yourself have a complaint or concern. In which case, you should see if you can resolve it informally before commencing the Formal grievance proceedings.

What you should not expect at an Informal Meeting is a Notetaker to produce a record of your discussion. Or to be asked to answer to any specific accusations or criticisms of you, where there is a clear threat of you being punished. And you certainly cannot receive any recorded warning or sanction.

An Informal Meeting can therefore be arranged on pretty much an ad hoc basis. It should never have significance beyond a possible Informal Warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So you are now ignoring all the advice given here and by (your?) union in favour of inaccurate advice given by ambulance chasers? This is going to end badly.

Edited by sangie5952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nicurro said:

Could I ask your thoughts on the below statement:

 

I never comment before I know the source. Context is everything.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACAS source of information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nicurro said:

ACAS source of information

So that's a pretty reliable source (on their web site. phone line is a different matter.)

 

Be careful not to confuse informal with investigation though. There is also no right to be accompanie to an investigation interview.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the meeting is being documented and a sanction imposed at which point it turns to a formal meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nicurro said:

ACAS source of information

Really? Is that true? Because the link embedded in the quote takes you to a private company who charge you for "union representation". Shocking that ACAS promote such companies. Oh, well they don't....

 

https://www.workplace-representation.co.uk - a private company not ACAS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...