rights as an employee

Googlewhacker

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

It is nice and kind that you spend your time helping others and Im sure that people do benefit and are thankfull.I never knew solicitors did work for free,I thought it was either fee paying or Legal Aid. I wish I was able to work for myself to escape all the employment crap.

Really? Wow, must be the bad rep they get I guess. I always presumed that they did do pro bono work. I always thought that more people in employment from all sectors did things to help others than not.

zagfles

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Really? Wow, must be the bad rep they get I guess. I always presumed that they did do pro bono work. I always thought that more people in employment from all sectors did things to help others than not.

Yes - you only need to look at the MSE forums for loads of examples, most boards have people using their professional expertise to help others for free.

ILW

Guess there are good and bad barristers.

The only time I really saw them in action was doing jury service at the Old Bailey.

Two Barristers managed to drag out a trial that was a foregone conclusion within the first few hours for the best part of a week. The general conclusion amongst the jurors was that it was purely a fee generating exercise.

zagfles

ILW wrote: »

Or work for yourself, and bang on about how useless/unfair/dishonest your boss is.

I did consider that many years ago - I worked with a bunch of contractors for over 10 years, basically they were doing the same job as me but because they were contractors not employees they earned far more than I did.

They always said "yes but you've got rights, security of employment, pension, don't need an accountant etc". Which was true - they could have been "sacked" (ie not had their contract renewed) at any time and they'd be first out of the door if there were any job losses.

Rights come at a price - which in my job was pretty easily measured by comparing employees' and contractors' salaries, and even accounting for their extra costs and lack of company funded pension the difference was staggering.

I would definitely have been better off contracting in hindsight, but I was always too cowardly, I preferred my cosy "rights" and not having to worry about my contract being renewed every 6 months.

unholyangel

zagfles wrote: »

Redundancy means the job is no longer required, not that someone has offered to do the job cheaper.If the job is still required then the employer can't legally make someone redundant and get someone else to do the same job for less money. At least that's what my union told me when we were in a redundancy situation. Are they wrong?

Yes employers can try to get round the law, and often succeed due to clever manouvers, but that's why the law itself is biased in favour of the employee.

So its illegal. It's not illegal for an employee to terminate the contract for any reason at all.

There's one employment tribunal judge in glasgow who would disagree with you. According to him, a business reducing its hours (was open 168 hours a week prior) by 20% (the nightshift) is not a redundancy situation and would instead be classed as a fair dismissal.

The only documents I've ever read with regards to redundancy were "where the need for the type or volume of work either ceases or diminishes" as a definition.

SarEl

unholyangel wrote: »

There's one employment tribunal judge in glasgow who would disagree with you. According to him, a business reducing its hours (was open 168 hours a week prior) by 20% (the nightshift) is not a redundancy situation and would instead be classed as a fair dismissal.

The only documents I've ever read with regards to redundancy were "where the need for the type or volume of work either ceases or diminishes" as a definition.

I am afraid that he is not alone and nor is he "incorrect" in his interpratation of the law or the way it is applied in tribunals. Zagfles definition was simplistic at best, and therefore, like many simplifications, just wrong.

Zagfles appears to derive his/her practical expertise of employment law and tribunals from the Conservative manifesto and the tabloid press, from the sinecure of an employment which appears to have the benefit of a relatively strong union base. There is a very different view to be derived from those people who actually have to use the tribunal system. One can only hope that Zagfles doesn't get disabused of their notions the hard way

anamenottaken

unholyangel wrote: »

There's one employment tribunal judge in glasgow who would disagree with you. According to him, a business reducing its hours (was open 168 hours a week prior) by 20% (the nightshift) is not a redundancy situation and would instead be classed as a fair dismissal.

The only documents I've ever read with regards to redundancy were "where the need for the type or volume of work either ceases or diminishes" as a definition.

I don't see how a reduction in opening hours is not a diminishment in the volume of work required. If you are able to provide a reference for why this tribunal decided it wasn't a potential redundancy situation, please give it.

One of the fair grounds for dismissal is redundancy. So I don't see why the reduction in hours would be seen as a fair grounds for dismissal but not a redundancy. I think we need to know what was recorded in the case to which you refer.

SarEl

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

It is nice and kind that you spend your time helping others Don't do it to be "nice" or "kind" and Im sure that people do benefit and are thankfull. Maybe the former, not always the latter - it's more common to be shot for bearing the news they didn't want to hear.

I never knew solicitors did work for free, Some lawyers do, some don't. It is a matter for their own choice. But as zzzLaztDaisy points out so astutely, when we "volunteer" in this way it is a time consuming exercise which is undertaken at the expense of our income, not a couple of hours after work. Because if we don't charge there is no income.

I thought it was either fee paying or Legal Aid.This is not an option in employment law. It is fee paying or pro-bono because Legal Aid does not apply to employment law cases. That is why we are inundated with applications for pro-bono work and demand far outstrips supply

I wish I was able to work for myself to escape all the employment crap.

Self-employment may have benefits, but it also has disbenefits. No sick pay, no holiday pay, no security... Many of the self-employed are struggling to find work too. The only way to be comfortable and secure in life, assuming you did not have the foresight to be born into privilege and wealth, is to win the lottery. That is its attraction.

SarEl

ILW wrote: »

Two Barristers managed to drag out a trial that was a foregone conclusion within the first few hours for the best part of a week. The general conclusion amongst the jurors was that it was purely a fee generating exercise.

The trial was a "foregone conclusion"? I presume that means the defendant(s) were not guilty? Because the only foregone conclusion in a criminal trial is that the defendant(s) are innocent.

This being a given, the role of the barristers is to argue the case so that the jurors are able to establish whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges have little patience with barristers wasting the time of the court, but they do have a responsibility to ensure that every person who appears before them obtains a fair and objective hearing based on the evidence and all legal argument. It's one of those annoying little things called a human right.

If the jurors had decide guilt within a few hours and considered the rest of it a waste of their time, then it was the jurors who were not doing their jobs - not the barristers.

SarEl

anamenottaken wrote: »

I don't see how a reduction in opening hours is not a diminishment in the volume of work required. If you are able to provide a reference for why this tribunal decided it wasn't a potential redundancy situation, please give it.

One of the fair grounds for dismissal is redundancy. So I don't see why the reduction in hours would be seen as a fair grounds for dismissal but not a redundancy. I think we need to know what was recorded in the case to which you refer.

Because, as I (and a few others) keep telling people here, the law isn't that simple! There are a number of grounds upon which a tribunal may determine that a diminishment of work is not a redundancy, the most obvious one of which would be that a position for fewer working hours is not autoimatically an unsuitable alternative position.

Tribunals have always had the ability to determine that a cut in hours is not a redundancy, giving due regard to the specific circumstances of a case. It is an assumption that employers cannot reduce working hours without giving rise to redundancy - it has never been true. What is "reasonable" (the only measure that tribunals have in many of their interpretations of the law) is a social construct - what may be "reasonable" today in a recession is not the same as what may be "reasonable" in a period of high employment.

Hence you will find that those of us who deal with tribunals on a day to day basis frequently tell people that a reduction of 10% of their hours almost certainly wouldn't be a redundancy or unfair dismissal, and increasingly at this time 15-20% is considered a very dodgy claim too. It all depends on the specific circumstances. But cases as described by this poster are a long, long, way off uncommon and are deemed lawful rulings.

people often assume they have rights that they don't have - this is one of them.