Employee who doesnt want to work

ceridwen

O.P. - I'm finding it difficult to see why you see the employee "doesnt WANT to work" (errr.....who does?).

Your employee does intend to work - full-time as normal - but he can see that his job (ie full-time) isnt there/hasnt been there for weeks now and doesnt know if or when it ever will be there again. Therefore hes redundant...therefore hes asking to be officially made redundant. That fact tells us precisely nothing about whether he WANTS to work or no. Even if it did - why would that matter? One's feelings about a job are totally irrelevant in this context.

What your employee WANTS is to resolve this unsatisfactory situation - and the only means to do so that is within his control is to use the law to get you to admit that he is redundant (which he obviously is).

Maybe the reason the other employees in the same position havent done the same thing is down to them not wanting to work any more than this employee - but hanging on still hoping that they will get their jobs (ie ALL their job) back soon. It would be the honourable thing to offer them redundancy too - should they wish to take it.

The "something" that is "not right here" is you not facing facts. Those prepared to come in and do a bit of work on a part-time basis can presumably afford (for whatever reason) to work part-time (maybe they have a partner with a well-paid job/maybe they're retired/maybe the work they do isnt "on the books"). This particular employee (and presumably many of your other employees) cant afford to only work part-time (maybe he has a heavy mortgage/maybe he is childless - so couldnt make up any of his lost income from extra Tax Credits/who knows...and its his business anyway).

If I were in his position - then you would have had the same letter from me (but even sooner). Reason: because I'm childless and any salary I lost couldnt be made up any other way (ie courtesy of Child Tax Credits) and I wouldnt have enough money to live on on part-time salary. Therefore I would have no option but to get a letter from you stating I was redundant (so I could get benefit to live on - whilst looking for another job). Whether I actually WANTED to do your job/or anyone else's job is totally irrelevant to all that. I have to do a job to earn my living - as do a lot of us - and the fact that I dont WANT to do it/or any job I ever had to date isnt relevant (I've worked for over 30 years anyway regardless of that fact). The only thing that counts is my need for a full-time income. I'm assuming that your employee is "in the same boat" as me and a lot of the rest of us.

getmore4less

As an employer you should know the rules for laying people off or putting them on short time and have employment contracts to reflect this.

Time to brush up on how to employ people.

If the normal week was 5days the 2/3 days could be critical to 6 weeks under 1/2 for short time over 13 weeks(or whatever the rule is).

Did you counter the request correctly?

As for the current situation how long have they been working for you?

Basic redundancy is only a max £350 per year of service(with a min 2 year qualify) so may not cost you that much to let them go if you cannot recover the situation through the correct procedure.

I don't understand why you are paying extra if you have people on short time offer then the work at their normal rates.

bendix

I agree. The cost of redundancy is so low in the UK that it would probably be better to get rid of him. He's likely to be a disruptive element in the company anyway, particularly if you force him back.

Plenty of other people out there to do his job - it's an employers' market.

outofworksch

I would have thought if he had no case, then his union would have advised him accordingly.

JUNIOR

"Plenty of other people out there to do his job - it's an employers' market."

This is why employers feel they can treat there employee's like dirt , they've got us over a barrel and they know it :mad:

My advice to all employee's is to follow employment law and contracts and when they step out of line , like this case come down on them like ton of bricks . Like one op said , business is business;).

liney

Blimey I agree with Ceridwen !

Your employee does want to work. He wants to work in the job he applied for and has been doing until you put him on short time 3 months ago.

The law enables him to request redundancy when the situation is no longer a short term measure - 3 months is not a short term measure.

Look on the bright side - you can give another worker some extra hours.

Of course this is assuming you didn't think you could play the system, put them on short time indefinately, and have people resign leaving you with no "bill"?

ceridwen

liney wrote: »

Blimey I agree with Ceridwen !

Your employee does want to work. He wants to work in the job he applied for and has been doing until you put him on short time 3 months ago.

The law enables him to request redundancy when the situation is no longer a short term measure - 3 months is not a short term measure.

Look on the bright side - you can give another worker some extra hours.

Of course this is assuming you didn't think you could play the system, put them on short time indefinately, and have people resign leaving you with no "bill"?

Errr.....<cough> ...you mean you DISagree with me normally?:rolleyes::D:rotfl::rotfl: .....well...thanks for that....'tis nice when someone works things out on a "case by case" basis (as I do myself....)......In fairness - I'd even agree with the poster on this Board who "loves to hate me" if I thought he was right on that occasion:D

Personally - I wont be nasty to people and I dislike being blunt - but there are times when "blunt" is what is necessary...and I'm afraid this is one of them...

(Oh....G*d...I just wish everyone else was half as self-critical as some of us are - and we wouldnt HAVE these self-justifying threads.......)

BlueIsTheColour

You need to research "Notice of intention to claim redundancy" (The Acas link above explains lay offs and short time well but doesn't mention this) as basically if you dont do anything within 7 days of his letter then he can consider himself redundant and claim payments from you, providing he meets the criteria.

Essentially an employee has to be laid of (no work at all) or on short time (Less than half a weeks pay) for either 4 consecutive weeks and 6 weeks in a rolling 13week period. When he reaches that point he provides you with his notice of intention to claim, and your ONLY defence against paying this is if you can offer him 13 weeks of consecutive work at his contract rate with 4 weeks date of his letter, if you can't do this, then am afraid you don't have a choice, he is entitled to it. If you can do this, then you have to issue him "counter notice" citing that you have the work available

Should you not pay, I am presuming he will be going to an Employment Tribunal to claim for it....

liney

ceridwen wrote: »

Errr.....<cough> ...you mean you DISagree with me normally?:rolleyes::D:rotfl::rotfl: .....well...thanks for that....'tis nice when someone works things out on a "case by case" basis (as I do myself....)......In fairness - I'd even agree with the poster on this Board who "loves to hate me" if I thought he was right on that occasion:D

Personally - I wont be nasty to people and I dislike being blunt - but there are times when "blunt" is what is necessary...and I'm afraid this is one of them...

(Oh....G*d...I just wish everyone else was half as self-critical as some of us are - and we wouldnt HAVE these self-justifying threads.......)

I didn't mean anything by it. Only joshing with you.

bendix

JUNIOR wrote: »

"Plenty of other people out there to do his job - it's an employers' market."

This is why employers feel they can treat there employee's like dirt , they've got us over a barrel and they know it :mad:

My advice to all employee's is to follow employment law and contracts and when they step out of line , like this case come down on them like ton of bricks . Like one op said , business is business;).

Huh? What are you talking about? The OP in this case is an employer who has a staff member who doesnt want to work? How would it be screwing the employee to make him redundant if it's what the guy wants?

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping this employee. He doesnt want to work. He will add no value and - worst - he will be disruptive and negative. Get rid of him and find someone else who actually wants a job and, in the process, make three people happy.