Grievance Apeal

Mark_h_4

Just looking for a bit of advice really.

I have had a formal grievance with my company and they have rejected my claims.

What do I need to outline in my apeal letter?

SarEl

Mark_h wrote: »

What do I need to outline in my apeal letter?

The reason why you are appealing and why you disagree with the finding sounds like a good idea.

It's seriously hard to give you any other answer than that - no information!

Jarndyce

The reasons why you disagree with their decision, and any evidence you have to support your position. Not much to go on there!

Edit: Snap!

Mark_h_4

After I posted I did think I should have put more on really. Got a bit hot headed really.

So basically I did a TUPE transfer. Both before and after I have been classed as a 'site based engineer' on the contract however during my consultation and after my transfer I was told clearly by management (verbaly) that I would/was be changed to a mobile engineer on my first day and should claim all millage from my house to my place of work. I clarified this with them on more than one occasion (up till the time I put in my milage claim) however I was told after I had put my claim for petrol in it had been declined as I wasnt a mobile engineer despite what i was told.

Yes I do travel to the same site and back everyday however the information was miss represented to me.

I spoke to a lawyer who said I could take action for miss representation of information and I was well within my rights to reclaim the costs.

I went on to have e-mail conversations with 2 levels of management and also HR. They admitted that they had told me the information incorrectly however they still wouldnt pay the claim. I went to a grievance meeting and they have just e-mailed me a letter to say "yes we did give you the wrong information however in your contract it says you're site based and all we will give you is 2 weeks petrol as a good will payment" (not the 2 months that was on the claim).

2 weeks doesnt feel right considering the difference in amounts. A legal firm has seem the e-mail conversations and said I have a case but im un-sure as to if I shoud go further or not. The problem is I feel that I have been misslead and really they should pay for their mistakes?

I need some advice really.

Im so angry I dont want to act to quickly but I only have 7 days.

SarEl

I cannot see why the legal firm think you have a case - or even what they think you have a case of. The employer has misrepresentated nothing - they have made a mistake. In law, misrepresentation is defined, under contract law, as making a false statement to another person or entity that has the effect of inducing the other party into a contract with the party making the statement. They didn't induce you into anything - you were going to transfer to their employment and would remain in their employment whether you liked it or not, so you have suffered no loss. Your terms and conditions remained the same, as they should under TUPE, and you were always required to pay your home to work mileage. The employer didn't make a false statement - making a mistake and making a false statement are entirely different things.

You should laso take into account that if you are site based, which you agree that you are, home to work mileage is taxable.

Personally, I think you might seriously consider their good will gesture. In law they don't have to pay for their mistakes - only if they mislead with intent. And I think you would be foolish to seriously consdier legal action against your employer over two months mileage to your workplace. Quite apart from the fact that I do not think your lawyers have given you very good advice, taking your employer to court will be remembered by them, and not to your long term benefit.

Mark_h_4

Thanks SarEl I do see your point.

The thing is I didnt have to transfer at all I could have stayed with the company I was with and had the perk of the millage as I would have been a cover engineer i just wouldnt have been working on the contract i was on already it would have been much more varied. Is that a moot point?

I do feel a bit misslead because what they told me in reality is now not the case and it seems to have changed because they wanted to?

I guess I just got easily frustrated because of the differing in amounts offered and that as you say i was potentially given 'duff' information by a lawyer which I took as gospal.

SarEl

Mark_h wrote: »

Thanks SarEl I do see your point.

The thing is I didnt have to transfer at all I could have stayed with the company I was with and had the perk of the millage as I would have been a cover engineer i just wouldnt have been working on the contract i was on already it would have been much more varied. Is that a moot point?

I do feel a bit misslead because what they told me in reality is now not the case and it seems to have changed because they wanted to?

I guess I just got easily frustrated because of the differing in amounts offered and that as you say i was potentially given 'duff' information by a lawyer which I took as gospal.

I think you will struggle to prove that this was anything but an error, but even if you did do so - you gain 6 weeks mileage (because the error has been corrected so you go back to your terms) and loose what else? Staying on reaosnable terms with the employer has value. You have proven your point - you aren't a walk over. But there is a point at which to keep the scales balanced - don't annoy the employer for something that isn't worth having!

aybe a better approach may be to accept the outcome, making it clear that you are nevertheless unhappy, but are willing to let it be water under the bridge - then see whether there can be any discussion about the potential for a shift to mobile engineer in the future, perhaps focussing on the fact that you would like the variety (rather than the expenses!) and your real sticking point was that you were looking forward to that type of role and were very disappointed that the promises didn't materilaise. In a nice conciliatory way. You catch more flies with honey...

Mark_h_4

SarEl wrote: »

then see whether there can be any discussion about the potential for a shift to mobile engineer in the future, perhaps focussing on the fact that you would like the variety (rather than the expenses!) and your real sticking point was that you were looking forward to that type of role and were very disappointed that the promises didn't materilaise. In a nice conciliatory way. You catch more flies with honey...

Yes that is a real point that i think has to be made because I was initially told I would cover 3 sites and be a lot more mobile where as in reality I have been stuck in the same place which I was told wouldnt be the case (in writing this time). I have been away from here for work about.... 4 maybe 5 times where as I should only be doing half a day here then moving somewhere else.

Part of my grievance was to ask when this change would happen (As its been agree'd it will happen we just dont know when) and the details about what exactly I would be covering as I was originally told 3 sites then it changed to 2 and no one really seemed to know what was going on.

All I was told was:

"In addition we will encourage an early resolution to the matter of your contractual status."

Which seems a bit of a cop out?

atilla

Mark_h wrote: »

Thanks SarEl I do see your point.

The thing is I didnt have to transfer at all I could have stayed with the company I was with and had the perk of the millage as I would have been a cover engineer i just wouldnt have been working on the contract i was on already it would have been much more varied. Is that a moot point?

I do feel a bit misslead because what they told me in reality is now not the case and it seems to have changed because they wanted to?

I guess I just got easily frustrated because of the differing in amounts offered and that as you say i was potentially given 'duff' information by a lawyer which I took as gospal.

That reads, to me anyway, that you knew the legalities regarding the mileage but chose to transfer across because, based on what they told you (rightly or wrongly) you thought you'd earn a few extra quid.

HMRC rules are quite clear on what is and isn't allowed.

Mark_h_4

atilla wrote: »

That reads, to me anyway, that you knew the legalities regarding the mileage but chose to transfer across because, based on what they told you (rightly or wrongly) you thought you'd earn a few extra quid.

HMRC rules are quite clear on what is and isn't allowed.

Sorry I dont quite follow?

agrinnall

I imagine that what atilla is referring to is that travel from home to your normal place of work is not an allowable expense.