Should employer pay overnight expense?

Andy_L

timnicebutdim wrote: »

Sorry but I don’t understand…. So long as your claim for expenses is legitimate (I.e. mileage @ 40p per mile when you have paid for the petrol), then when the money is reimbursed to you from your employer, you can spend it on what ever you wish. Just like your wages.

the op wouldn't have travelled those miles that they claimed for though. Whilst it might be the same price for a hotel as mileage you ,ime, have to sign the claim form saying the claim you put in is accurate which in this case it wouldn't be - thus starting you down the fraud/gross misconduct route

Savvy_Sue

OK, so on our claim forms we'd make it clear that we're claiming less than the total expense incurred, if that makes sense.

getmore4less

ckerrd wrote: »

I can't see how they can insist on not paying him for travel.

They are, he has a company car llowance and they pay for fuel ncluding personal use.

ckerrd

getmore4less wrote: »

They are, he has a company car llowance and they pay for fuel ncluding personal use.

Sorry I realise that now but what I meant was travel time

getmore4less

ckerrd wrote: »

Sorry I realise that now but what I meant was travel time

Agree they need to come to a comprimise on the travel time involved for this temporary site.

rupee99

timnicebutdim wrote: »

Sorry but I don’t understand…. So long as your claim for expenses is legitimate (I.e. mileage @ 40p per mile when you have paid for the petrol), then when the money is reimbursed to you from your employer, you can spend it on what ever you wish. Just like your wages.

The suggestion was to claim mileage, but not actually do the travelling and use the money to stay in a hotel. That would be fraudulent.

Expenses are a REIMBURSEMENT in compensation for monies spent on a specific item, they are not like your wages.

slinkykev

ceridwen wrote: »

I saw the point made re constructive dismissal - and well understand why it was made. It would be the first thought that would come to my mind actually.

I think it is worth looking into - but be very careful. The employer might have already looked into this and come to the conclusion that a Tribunal would find against you on this - and, from this, is deliberately instructing you to follow such unreasonable instructions precisely in the hope that you will fall into a trap and resign and they will have got away with not paying you anything.

I am wondering if you are actually in a redundancy situation and there actually is no alternative work your employer could give you - hence they have realised that they "should" be making you redundant really - but then decided to play it this way in the hope that you would resign and save them a redundancy payout.

Are there any suggestions you could make to your employer actually as to what other - more reasonable - work you could do instead?

Hi all, wow, guess I have started a bit of a debate here! Thanks for all your thoughts. Ceridwen, I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head, this is my thought exactly .... put the Employees (BTW this situation doesn't just apply to me) in such a difficult position that they cannot work and are forced to leave .... instead of the Employer needing to make redundancies


Whilst the fuel arguement is an interesting one, I do have a fuel card and monthly car allowance, so in that respect all fuel is paid for, even for these long journeys.

The stupid thing is that I can prove it is the same price, or even marginally cheaper for me to stay in a hotel compared to the cost of fuel driving each day. Yet the company refuses to accept this as an arguement as hotel expenses are charged direct to the project to which the Manager has to account for whereas fuel is a company overhead which he does not account for.


The outcome of this thread I was hoping there would be some piece of legislation or Regulation that I could go back to my Employer and prove they are acting unlawful by expecting me to drive these long distances on a daily basis.

ckerrd

If you were to work the hours suggested, then even allowing for meal breaks (say 90 minutes maximum) then you would be working 10.5 to 11 hours a day.
So an average of 55 hours per week.

This would cause your employer to break the working time regulations.

(Unless of course you have signed an opt out)

ninky_2

jdturk wrote: »

So why is my 5 minute drive to my workplace not dictated as work time but the OP's 2.5 hours drive is deemed work time. Genuine question requesting a genuine answer please!

because travel time to your regular place of work is not counted. your employer can only deem one location as your regular place of work (afaik). some more info here. i'd recommend calling acas for more info.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/rights_getalife.cfm#Working%20out%20your%20working%20time

ohreally

slinkykev wrote: »

The outcome of this thread I was hoping there would be some piece of legislation or Regulation that I could go back to my Employer and prove they are acting unlawful by expecting me to drive these long distances on a daily basis.

Silly old me thought the legislation referred to in post #3 would have left you suitably armed to raise the issue.