Legal advice re return from sabbatical

jdturk

Lois_Lane wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies - in particular the advice about going to ACAS, I hadn't thought of that and will do so on Monday morning.

Regarding the sick pay issue, OH was paid for the first 3 months of his absence, although contractually he was only entitled to SSP. The 3 months were paid at the discretion of the company and were to honour the fact that he has been there 13 years and previously had an exemplary attendance record. After the first 3 months he only received SSP and hasn't received any income since going on sabbatical.

To clarify, the company he works for is actually a small business employing 8 people plus 2 directors. There are two other people doing the same job as OH, which is in sales, so logically speaking his return should increase income for the company. He generally sold more than his peers. One of his peers has been there for 3 years and has only 2 years until he retires, so if the company is still going by then they will have to replace him.

There was nothing put in writing regarding the sabbatical, however OH has kept in touch with his employers and his boss's last email included the words 'looking forward to your return'.

Thanks again for your help, I'll try to get online again soon.

LL

I think my point is that you were more than happy to take from the company when they could afford it and they helped your husband during the good times and he was ill (when they didn't have to by the sounds of it) but now when they are struggling and have not had any work from the employee in the last two years you are looking to take them to the cleaners for more money.

I understand you have to look after yourselves and as Uncertain said its obviously upto you where you see yourself morally on this whether or not its legal

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

My point is, is that a business can not have 'perks' such as contractual sick pay and still not pay higher wages. For example what about all the NMW workers that work for companies such as Mcdonalds etc, now correct me if I am wrong but I doubt that these companies will pay more than SSP so in effect for not having this they don't have to increase their wages

I suspect we are talking about a much higher level here than the NMW in McDonalds!

My point was that if I was going to take a job without any CSP benefits I would expect to get a higher salary or other "perks" to compensate. I would look at the value to me of the whole package.

I appreciate that if the best job you can find is on the NMW in McD's then you are not so lucky and can't be so choosy.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

I think my point is that you were more than happy to take from the company when they could afford it and they helped your husband during the good times and he was ill (when they didn't have to by the sounds of it) but now when they are struggling and have not had any work from the employee in the last two years you are looking to take them to the cleaners for more money.

I understand you have to look after yourselves and as Uncertain said its obviously upto you where you see yourself morally on this whether or not its legal

You could take the tough view that, if they manage their HR this badly, they deserve to struggle?

Equally, how do you know they are struggling?

Neither JDTurk or I know the background or the relationship that existed before.

My view is that I would want some powerful reason to give up a legal entitlement that may potentially amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

But maybe there is such a reason?

Not for me to say.

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

I suspect we are talking about a much higher level here than the NMW in McDonalds!

My point was that if I was going to take a job without any CSP benefits I would expect to get a higher salary or other "perks" to compensate. I would look at the value to me of the whole package.

I appreciate that if the best job you can find is on the NMW in McD's then you are not so lucky and can't be so choosy.

We're both on the same line really

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

You could take the tough view that, if they manage their HR this badly, they deserve to struggle?

Equally, how do you know they are struggling?

Neither JDTurk or I know the background or the relationship that existed before.

My view is that I would want some powerful reason to give up a legal entitlement that may potentially amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

But maybe there is such a reason?

Not for me to say.

I very much doubt it would be tens of thousends of pounds and generally I agree with your sentiments.

However what you say is true about knowing the full detals but going of what we have been told I would say that as though the OP has survivied for the last two years on the money they had been getting I would guess they don't need (I mean really need!) the money by taking a company to an ET which as far as we can tell have been good to the OP's husband for the previous 15 years