Ex-employer will not pay me!

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Does the fact that the OP refused to sign the (written) contract not suggest that it must be significantly different from what was verbally agreed?

By your argument a firm could promise anything verbally then threaten to sue the employee for walking out after refusing to sign something completely different a few weeks later. The could in effect get several weeks work for no pay?

As I said above - going back to the original posts I do not think this is what happened - I think we are getting a lot of assumptions and one side of the story! In theory a firm can (and often does) verbally offer one thing then change their minds. I have heard it happen over pay rates often enough (although it is actually quite rare). But whilst a verbal agreement is binding - it is only actionable if you can prove it. After all, it is your word against theirs.

pop_gun

SarEl wrote: »

Clever - but I don't agree. The issue is evidential - there is no evidence that the contract was for fewer hours

this job must have been advertised. the OP has evidence if he can locate the initial advertisement.

DVardysShadow

SarEl, you still have not addressed the issue of it being a constructive dismissal.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

SarEl, you still have not addressed the issue of it being a constructive dismissal.

Putting to one side the fact that no such claim as contructive unfair dismissal (which is the actual term) can be made (less than 12 months employment), such a claim requires an evidential basis which the OP has not demonstrated. OP says that s/he was told the job was 40 hours - something for which s/he claims to have a verbal assurance. But a verbal assurance is evidence of nothing. All of which is moot, because the OP was told the working conditions at interview - he or she simply didn't understand or clarify the conditions. If you go back to the original post the conditions were 40 hours plus sleep-ins. Quote from the original post "Sorry I should have said we were told by the general manager in a meeting, and my contract which I received after this states the same."

I am no fan of the social care sector, so I am certainly not defending the conditions - but they are a fact and they were a fact that the OP not only was told about (even if they didn't understand what was said), but was told "in a meeting with the general manager" and then again "in the written terms" (all of which happened within the first few weeks of employment - the OP quit their job within five weeks of starting).

I see no cause to argue (not least because there is no claim) constructive unfair dismissal, and the argument that PILON may be due on this basis is not founded in law. At five weeks the only basis for PILON would be a claim of wrongful dismissal, and there is no such thing as "constructive wrongful dismissal"; or breach of contract (which I have already given my opinion on and I think such a claim would be unlikely to succeed for the reasons I have given).

SarEl

PS - None of which detracts from my original advice which is that if the employer refuses to pay then the only option would be legal action and that this may result in a counter-claim. The OP is not in a strong position if it came to this - but it hasn't yet come to this.

DVardysShadow

As I said, the question is not a claim for constructive dismissal. It is that a constructive dismissal occurred and is the OP not entitled to pay to cover notice? If it is constructive dismissal, then the employer has no basis to make a counterclaim. Surely.

The problem I find with some of your advice is that it conflates the issues with how it might play out and the principles seem to get lost in the pragmatics. But the principles which apply are more important here, because at least that gives the OP a chance to identify and preserve any relevant evidence.

shikoku

The employer is legally obliged to pay you for every second you worked for him; anything less is an unlawful deduction.

stanleymog

Hi,

Thanks for all the replies, I have a letter from the company which offers me the job basically, in this letter it states:-

'As agreed, your salary will be £x.xx per hour for a 40 hour week.'

When I received the contract it states:-

'In respect of those hours that the employee is required to work as part of their "sleep-in" duties, the employee will not be paid their usual hourly rate etc'

So on my original letter (and interview) I was told it was a 40 hour week, when I received my contract I am told there will be an extra 27 - 36 hours to work.

If this had been stated in the original letter then I wouldn't have taken the job, it was only when it became known and that was after I received the contract and not before was when I left the job.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As I said, the question is not a claim for constructive dismissal. It is that a constructive dismissal occurred and is the OP not entitled to pay to cover notice? If it is constructive dismissal, then the employer has no basis to make a counterclaim. Surely.

The problem I find with some of your advice is that it conflates the issues with how it might play out and the principles seem to get lost in the pragmatics. But the principles which apply are more important here, because at least that gives the OP a chance to identify and preserve any relevant evidence.

OK, I am not being clear. Constructive unfair dismissal is a legal concept. It only exists within a specific legal framework, and that framework is the law on unfair dismissal. For these purposes, it does not "exist" until the one year continuous employment mark, just as unfair dismissal does not. You might be dismissed at six months employment, it might be unfair, but it isn't an unfair dismissal - in law. There is a vast difference between the vernacular "I was dismissed infairly" and the legal "it was an unfair dismissal".

And you may have problems with my approach to the law, but that isn't relevant. I have not said at any time that the OP wasn't entitled to be paid for the time they worked. I have pointed out the "round view" and the complications entailed. What they decide to do with that information is then up to them. Having reviewed both posts, nothing, including the latest information provided by the poster, changes my view. It may not play out that way, but it equally may. The OP has two views here and they may follow either or neither.

stanleymog

SarEl wrote: »

Especially since I have just gone back and read the original posts! WTD does not apply. It is a social care role - 40 hours plus sleep ins. The OP is including the sleep-ins as working time. Although there is some legal argument about this, it's a long way off settled, and such practices are common in the social care sector. Most employers have all their bases covered. We can await the outcome of the legal arguments - but they won't help the poster here. However the poster admits that he knew there were sleepins - just not that they were paid at a sleep in rate and not normal rate. I would suggest that this is a case of people making assumptions - his employers perhaps that he understood the sector, and the OP that he would be paid to sleep in.

Hi,
I only found out after I took the job, this was in an open meeting that was around 5 days before I handed my notice in (It may have been a couple more or less days). A lot of the staff raised the questions as a lot of us were 'mis-led' and wanted to find out the truth, we were all under the impression that it was a basic 40 hours per week.