Anyone know about Employment Law

KiKi

ahll wrote: »

Do I understrand that correctly ? Presumably this could be extented if in a written contract it says a different time period eg one month ? Like in my partner least job 2 months notice was required...a long time.

A contract cannot offer less than the statutory minimum (so it can't say 3 days' notice when the legal minimum is a week). But yes, a contract can stipulate longer than the statutory minimum.

KiKi

LittleVoice

ahll wrote: »

Thanks for the link i have just been taking a look. I always thought for notice you had to give a weeks noitce if your weekly paid and 1 monthly noitce if monthly paid.

From what I can make out the '86 Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice.' section seems to be saying if you have worked there a month or more 1 weeks notice is suffieceint. Also a week if you have worked there less than a month.

Do I understrand that correctly ? Presumably this could be extented if in a written contract it says a different time period eg one month ? Like in my partner least job 2 months notice was required...a long time.

"The notice required to be given by an employee who has been continuously employed for one month or more to terminate his contract of employment is not less than one week."

In the absence of anything in writing which provides for longer notice, an employee who has worked one month or more need only ever give one week's notice. In the first month, an employee can leave without giving notice (again as long as they don't have written terms which specify longer). There is no link with pay periods.

LittleVoice

KiKi wrote: »

A contract cannot offer less than the statutory minimum (so it can't say 3 days' notice when the legal minimum is a week). But yes, a contract can stipulate longer than the statutory minimum.

KiKi

I suppose that, theoretically, if the employer didn't want to exercise their right to the week's notice, they could say 3 days was enough.






(And I'm not discussing this with myself. KiKi and LV are not the same person!)

KiKi

LittleVoice wrote: »

I suppose that, theoretically, if the employer didn't want to exercise their right to the week's notice, they could say 3 days was enough.

How could they? An employer can't give less than the statutory minimum...?

(And I'm not discussing this with myself. KiKi and LV are not the same person!)

:rotfl: :rotfl: That was SUCH a funny thread, utterly bizarre! I did wonder if you'd seen those posts, as you hadn't replied, and then the posts had disappeared the next morning when I logged on! Did you report them? Someone must have...!

(I was rather alarmed to see that you were a grammar pedant, too, though - the case did rather build up against me. Or us? I've no idea. )

KiKi

ahll

OK another question....

My paterner has now been informed that everyday a deduction of 30 mins it will be made for a break.

They have also said that during the break my partner cannot leave the site but if something crops up then they should deal with it . Can this be right surly you have a right to leave the sight if you wish and its not really a break if you are at peoples beck and call.

Does anyone know how this stands with relation employment law ?

Slinky

For a business that doesn't put anything in writing, they sure have a long list of do's and don'ts don't they!

For me the alarm bells would be ringing and I'd be looking for something else.

SarEl

If this is a lunch break then they cannot refuse to allow employees off the site. But since this is a new job they can sack him. So what the law says doesn't matter really. I agree with the look for another job advice. If he has so many problems with them now it isn't going to improve.

ahll

Slinky wrote: »

For a business that doesn't put anything in writing, they sure have a long list of do's and don'ts don't they!

For me the alarm bells would be ringing and I'd be looking for something else.

Yeah they sure do and its finding out about what they are that seems tricky plus I am not sure some of them are legal.
The job hunt is on so its a matter of time now...

ahll

SarEl wrote: »

If this is a lunch break then they cannot refuse to allow employees off the site. But since this is a new job they can sack him. So what the law says doesn't matter really. I agree with the look for another job advice. If he has so many problems with them now it isn't going to improve.

Yes this is classed as the lunch break if on early shift 6am-2 or 2.30 or late 2.30 or 3 until 10.30 pm it would be tea/dinner time.

I am not sure what it is on the weekend days where a 13hrs shift is required.....

Sack ! Surely to be sacked they would have to go through a full deciplinary proceedure wouldnt they ?

KiKi

ahll wrote: »

I am not sure what it is on the weekend days where a 13hrs shift is required.....

With the appropriate, legally required breaks, I hope?

Sack ! Surely to be sacked they would have to go through a full deciplinary proceedure wouldnt they ?

Not in the first 12 months of employment, no. They can sack you for any reason (as long as it's not a discriminatory one). That's one of the reasons you have to think about whether you should make a fuss of things in your first year.

And it looks like this will be extended to two years, so even worse for employees!

KiKi