Employer says I have to pay back for cancelled hotel room

williacg

Deleted_User wrote: »

Yes I'm in a union. I haven't brought it to their attention but other union members in the company have. (I'm the only union member here). The union haven't really done anything about it in the past apart from asking them to make sure "it doesn't happen again". I'm not sure if the union know about it happening again this time round yet or not. It happened nearly every month towards the end of last year, either paying late or paying half & half.

Company went into administration early this year and was bought out couple of month later. Everything has been fine until now.

I'm afraid that I can't be of any legal assistance (I'm sure that someone will come along who can) but this would definetly set my alarm bells ringing ,as to the stability of the company. I would return to the union and update them, and ask them to investigate the matter further.

cindy101

Deleted_User wrote: »

No I wasn't ill. I just didn't fancy the 200 mile drive in the dark and pouring rain when the time came.

I know it was probably wrong of me. I'm just wondering what the legality is of them asking me to pay back the hotel room.

PHEW!! I wouldn't have fancied that long drive in the rain either mate,
but think I'd be grateful their was someone close enough to have been able to cover me being their,
swallow it and pay the £70.00,,
a bit of a bummer i know but you did kind of let them down , and i think £70 is a small price to pay to get out of that drive in rotten weather I'd be happy that's all they were wanting,

redcard

Deleted_User wrote: »

Company went into administration early this year and was bought out couple of month later. Everything has been fine until now.

Well, I'm sure they'll go back into administration if their staff throw away £70 on a regular basis cos they can't be arsed driving.

DVardysShadow

redcard wrote: »

Well, I'm sure they'll go back into administration if their staff throw away £70 on a regular basis cos they can't be arsed driving.

Although I appreciate the emotion behind this, your comment is quite mistaken. It appears to me that the employer has spent the same money sending the other employee as they would have spent sending the OP.

So if the OP had done the job, the company was throwing away its own £70, sending the OP, rather than the nearer employee. As it is, it looks like they are no worse off than they would have been if the OP had gone.

Really, this is a great big storm in a tea cup. OP has been naughty i declining the job he agreed to do, but he has not actually cost them any more than they were prepared to pay.

Googlewhacker

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Although I appreciate the emotion behind this, your comment is quite mistaken. It appears to me that the employer has spent the same money sending the other employee as they would have spent sending the OP.

So if the OP had done the job, the company was throwing away its own £70, sending the OP, rather than the nearer employee. As it is, it looks like they are no worse off than they would have been if the OP had gone.

Really, this is a great big storm in a tea cup. OP has been naughty i declining the job he agreed to do, but he has not actually cost them any more than they were prepared to pay.

Except the wages of someone else to attend.....

redcard

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Although I appreciate the emotion behind this, your comment is quite mistaken. It appears to me that the employer has spent the same money sending the other employee as they would have spent sending the OP.

So if the OP had done the job, the company was throwing away its own £70, sending the OP, rather than the nearer employee. As it is, it looks like they are no worse off than they would have been if the OP had gone.

Really, this is a great big storm in a tea cup. OP has been naughty i declining the job he agreed to do, but he has not actually cost them any more than they were prepared to pay.

He certainly cost them financially. He did not go, therefor the company has no need to spend £70 on a room, money that they could have spent elsewhere. Plus he almost certainly cost them time and inconvenience, and took 1 person away from their scheduled duties.

My comment was more on the attitude of the member of staff, not the loss of £70.
I mean, what else can't they be arsed doing.

bristol_pilot

The cost of management time discussing this within the Company has probably long since exceeded £70. £70 is FA in business, indeed so is £70,000.

The OP is not legally obliged to repay the money to the Company. He has already 'blotted his copybook' by his behaviour and repaying the money will not unblot it (so to speak). So I recommend not paying.

Instead of saying that he didn't fancy the drive, it would have been better to say that he had undertaken a risk assessment for the journey taking into account conditions at the time and concluded that it was not safe to travel.

JQ.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Although I appreciate the emotion behind this, your comment is quite mistaken. It appears to me that the employer has spent the same money sending the other employee as they would have spent sending the OP.

So if the OP had done the job, the company was throwing away its own £70, sending the OP, rather than the nearer employee. As it is, it looks like they are no worse off than they would have been if the OP had gone.

Really, this is a great big storm in a tea cup. OP has been naughty i declining the job he agreed to do, but he has not actually cost them any more than they were prepared to pay.

That's rather strange logic, there is an alternative view. If when asked whether the OP wanted the assignment he had said he couldn't be bothered travelling all that distance then no hotel room would have been booked, and the employee who ended up doing the task would have been asked to do it from the very start. So the OP did cost the company money.

DVardysShadow

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Except the wages of someone else to attend.....

Presumably, the OP did not get paid to attend.

DVardysShadow

JQ. wrote: »

That's rather strange logic, there is an alternative view. If when asked whether the OP wanted the assignment he had said he couldn't be bothered travelling all that distance then no hotel room would have been booked, and the employee who ended up doing the task would have been asked to do it from the very start. So the OP did cost the company money.

But the logic still stands. He did not cost them any more than they were prepared to pay. Or if he did, how much more than they were prepared to pay did he actually cost them???