Working without a written contract

telboyo

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Particulars of Employment are one thing, an employment contract is another, they are not the same, one is mandatory (Particulars) the other is obligatory (the contract).

Particulars need only contain the very basics about your job, eg job title, hours of work, salary, holidays etc etc

It may not even be a single document headed 'Particulars of Employment' as all the info may be on the job advert, letter offering employment etc etc, this is enough for the statutory Particulars.

An employment contract would usually be much more detailed but there is not even an obligation to provide one in writing, it can be oral.

Do not confuse the two, they are not the same thing!

I might be arguing semantics but what is the difference between MANDATORY and OBLIGATORY?
Are these legal definitions ?

From Wiktionary
Adjective

mandatory (comparative more mandatory, superlative most mandatory)

1. Obligatory; required or commanded by authority. Attendance at a school is usually mandatory.

getmore4less

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Particulars of Employment are one thing, an employment contract is another, they are not the same, one is mandatory (Particulars) the other is obligatory (the contract).

Particulars need only contain the very basics about your job, eg job title, hours of work, salary, holidays etc etc

It may not even be a single document headed 'Particulars of Employment' as all the info may be on the job advert, letter offering employment etc etc, this is enough for the statutory Particulars.

An employment contract would usually be much more detailed but there is not even an obligation to provide one in writing, it can be oral.

Do not confuse the two, they are not the same thing!

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Yes the contract and particulars are not the same thing I don't think anyone sugested they were .

One of the reasons emplyment legislation requires these minimum particulars is because many contract come into existence without this basics information.


The employer is required to provide a minimum set of particulars and for many people that will be sufficient and cover all the relevent details of their employment.

For the OP if anything you have received so far like the offer letter does not include the minimum required information you can point the the relevent employment legislation that requires them to provide this minimum set of info since you have beed told that will apply.

here is a summary of what is needed

your name and your employer’s name
your job title or a brief job description
the date when your employment began
your pay rate and when you will be paid
your hours of work
your holiday entitlement
where you will be working (if you are based in more than one place it should say this along with your employer’s address)
sick pay arrangements
notice periods
information about disciplinary and grievance procedures
any collective agreements that affect your employment terms or conditions
pensions and pension schemes
if you are not a permanent employee how long your employment is expected to continue, or if you are a fixed term worker the date your employment will end

If there are other things you think you need you can check the employement legislation that applies, fairly easy to find in most cases.

Googlewhacker

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Don't be daft.

There is no qualifying period for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract.

In fact, it can happen even before taking up a post depending on what the breach was.

Yes sorry you are right.

Educate me here, then, if I give someone their full notice of dismissal within the first year for say there work not being good enough where have I broken the contract wrongfully? It maybe unfair but as I mentioned you cannot do anything until 1 years service.

Bean_Counter

mexicanhat wrote: »

Has anyone got any experience of this? The offer letter covers most of the main issues but I am worried that a misunderstanding may develop at a later date.

Getting back to the original question, as long as the letter covers the main items such as salary, holidays, benefits etc etc, I would be happy with that.

CynicalScotsman

Originally Posted by SHIPSHAPE
Well, it would depend on what was written in the contract obviously.

In any case, if I were sacked simply because my job was to go to somebody on a lesser wage and for no other reason then I would sue for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract.

So there is comeback.

I think you should possibly research what you are going to say before you say it. A quick search that would have taken you 5 seconds to find would have shown you you were wrong. For example first hit i found this:

"An employee must have at least 12 months’ continuous service before they can make a complaint of unfair dismissal"
Taken from https://www.berr.gov.uk

SHIPSHAPE

telboyo wrote: »

I might be arguing semantics but what is the difference between MANDATORY and OBLIGATORY?
Are these legal definitions ?

From Wiktionary
Adjective

mandatory (comparative more mandatory, superlative most mandatory)

1. Obligatory; required or commanded by authority. Attendance at a school is usually mandatory.

Not obligatory !

SHIPSHAPE

CynicalScotsman wrote: »

I think you should possibly research what you are going to say before you say it. A quick search that would have taken you 5 seconds to find would have shown you you were wrong. For example first hit i found this:

"An employee must have at least 12 months’ continuous service before they can make a complaint of unfair dismissal"
Taken from www.berr.gov.uk

I think you should take your own advice before posting and looking like a plonker.

Wrongful dismissal is not unfair dismissal!

Web surfers eh?

SHIPSHAPE

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Yes sorry you are right.

Educate me here, then, if I give someone their full notice of dismissal within the first year for say there work not being good enough where have I broken the contract wrongfully? It maybe unfair but as I mentioned you cannot do anything until 1 years service.

Well, it would depend on what the contract states obviously.

I simply pointed out to you that your assumption that 'one is unable to do anything within the first year' is not always true.

It may be but not always, depending on the contract, should there be one.

SHIPSHAPE

getmore4less wrote: »

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point I am making is that the OP is concerned about working without a written contract and you bang on about the Particulars of Employment, which are two different things.

Yes the contract and particulars are not the same thing I don't think anyone sugested they were .

Yes you did-

AIUI for employment the particulars are the superset and include the contract.

Where do you think they differ?

You are asking me where they differ so you obviously think they don't.




One of the reasons emplyment legislation requires these minimum particulars is because many contract come into existence without this basics information.

Please provide your source that employment contracts contain basic info.

Also, provide your source that proves legislation exsists because one of the reasons is that contracts contain nothing but basics.


QUOTE]

.....................................

Googlewhacker

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Well, it would depend on what the contract states obviously.

I simply pointed out to you that your assumption that 'one is unable to do anything within the first year' is not always true.

It may be but not always, depending on the contract, should there be one.

Ah ok, its fair enough, I should have put the word 'practically' in front of the sentance.