Can my company do this!!!

Oldernotwiser

Any wrote: »

Have you read any other of my posts?

I said I agree with it all being reasonable... BUT it depends whether the pay is good for the 9hr 20 mins day...

.

I was simply pointing out that he doesn't work a 12 hour day, that's all.

kasomvc

Hello everybody! Just wanting some advice, I work for the NHS. I was involved in a RTA and sufferred whiplash injury, I was off sick since 1st of February 2011, My doctor has been giving me sicknotes covering a week at a time. My last sicknote ended on 21 February. I have been getting physio therapy due to my injury. I have informed my line manager that the doctor has signed me off for 2 weeks more and that I will be sending in my sicknote at some point. I submitted my sicknote on 1st March(This was covering 2 wks, from 22-28 February and 1-7 March ). Now my employer is saying that they will not pay me from 22-28 February as I have presented my sicknote 8 days late. They will be classifying it as UNAUTHORIZED ABSCENCE. I feel this is not right as they already knew that I was off sick long term plus the fact that I have informed my line manager in advance. Any advice on this?

Thank you very much!:(

real1314

kasomvc wrote: »

Hello everybody! Just wanting some advice, I work for the NHS. I was involved in a RTA and sufferred whiplash injury, I was off sick since 1st of February 2011, My doctor has been giving me sicknotes covering a week at a time. My last sicknote ended on 21 February. I have been getting physio therapy due to my injury. I have informed my line manager that the doctor has signed me off for 2 weeks more and that I will be sending in my sicknote at some point. I submitted my sicknote on 1st March(This was covering 2 wks, from 22-28 February and 1-7 March ). Now my employer is saying that they will not pay me from 22-28 February as I have presented my sicknote 8 days late. They will be classifying it as UNAUTHORIZED ABSCENCE. I feel this is not right as they already knew that I was off sick long term plus the fact that I have informed my line manager in advance. Any advice on this?

Thank you very much!:(

Please, start a new thread. it's impossible to reply to 2 different topics on one thread.

real1314

OP (the van driving / commuting guy)...

Is your works van available for and insured for private use?

If work are saying that the first 45 mins / time to first site is personal commuting, then they are effectively treating this time as a personal journey and would require appropriate insurance cover.

Old_Union_Guy

If you continue to work under the new rules without protest you are deemed to have accepted them. I'm assuming that this is something that's only just happened so I would get in contact with that Regional Manager as soon as possible. My tactic in these cases is to play slightly dumb and say something like "At the meeting you said that the contract said we're only paid from arrival at the first site, but when I started here the Personnel Manager told me to clock in from the time I left home and that's what I've always done. Isn't that custom and practice?" Get a feeling for where the ground lies with him. Also see what your fellow workers think about it.

DVardysShadow

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The OP is working from 0800 to 1800 with a forty minute break, which is a 9 hour 20 minute day. It is not normal to include your journey to and from work as part of your working day and the OP is exceptionally fortunate to be paid for an hour and a half of his commute.

Actually he is only paid for any commuting beyond an hour and a half.

A 9h20 day is long and I think originally it could have been 8h00 working with travelling of 40mins either way on top. So it looks to me that the company are now taking a second bite of travelling time from the employees.

ohreally

Theres a potential customary working practice issue to be addressed here. Was the previous arrangement long standing, well known and accepted by management? One for the trade union i believe.

On the subject of advice from ACAS and employment agencies - ask to be copied in on the correspondence while you collectively gather thoughts on how best you wish to proceed.

To do nothing will be deemed acceptance of the situation.

LittleVoice

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually he is only paid for any commuting beyond an hour and a half.

It seemed to me that the morning and evening journeys are counted separately so that a one hour trip in the morning would not be offset by a 30 minute journey at the end of the day. So though the journey times would total 1.5 hours, the worker would be paid for the extra 0.25 hours in the morning.

Oldernotwiser

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually he is only paid for any commuting beyond an hour and a half.

You're absolutely right; I put it the wrong way round.

lucylucky

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually he is only paid for any commuting beyond an hour and a half.

A 9h20 day is long and I think originally it could have been 8h00 working with travelling of 40mins either way on top. So it looks to me that the company are now taking a second bite of travelling time from the employees.

I think the "commute" is the key here.

The way the OP has described it there is no "commute" - they are working from the moment they get in the van.