Read our cookies policy.
Fruityloop wrote: »
I'm 17 and began a weekend job for a small company on the 1st April 2012. I have asked the owner of the company when I would be receiving my contract but was told that they're not given out until 6 months of working because of a trial period. As soon as I had worked there 6 months, the office would liase with the owner and a contract would be issued. Nearly 2 months after this supossed 'trial period', I'm still awaiting a contract, however my manager has said that she's been told I'm not getting one as I'm only part time staff. Since starting the job nearly 8 months ago, my hours have been halved. I've been told a legal requirement is to be issued with a contract within two months of starting work, is this correct? If so, how do I go about trying to resolve this as I have now asked on a number of occassions and don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Daydell wrote: »
Hi,The company that I work for is going through a very difficult period having lost a major customer and I am concerned that it may be forced to go in toadministration in the near future. I am 49 and have worked there full-time for justover 20 years. I am in the fortunate (or so I thought) position of having a 6 month notice period and I am also just in the higher tax bracket. If the company is forced to go in to administration then I know there would not be sufficient cash for redundancy or similar employee related payments. Can you please tell me what are my rights concerning redundancy payments and also payment for my notice period. I understand that I would only get statutory redundancy and that this is capped at a maximum weekly wage of £430? Is this true?Is there a similar cap in respect of payments for the notice period? I also have quite a number of untaken holidays even some from last year which haven’t taken because it’s been all hands to the pump trying to keep the business afloat.I guess I wouldn’t be entitled to any benefits and therefore every penny would count. Many thanks for any advice that you can give me.
roddycam wrote: »
A friend has worked for a local firm for 8 years in a managerial capacity. She has broken her ankle in two places and has had an operation to insert pins and a plate, and has been signed off work for 4-6 weeks. When she told the firm, a director said they would only pay her Statutory Sick Pay, the result being that she plans to return to work within the next week, despite being on crutches and in pain.
I feel this is unfair. Does she have any rights in this matter?
NeedHoliday wrote: »
I would really appreciate some help with this:
I've been working at a company for around 9 months on a zero hours contract. I have taken no holiday days whatsoever and have averaged perhaps 35 hours per week the whole time I've been there but more recently (the last two months or so) slightly more. I want to give my two week notice and leave and assumed that I would simply be able to 'cash in' my holiday pay accrued. After having a confusing conversation with my manager where they explained that I would be paid an average of my hours done per week over the last 12 weeks, I completely lost track of what I was trying to establish (mainly due to them talking to me as if I was inconveniencing them or was stupid). I understand the bit about the 12 weeks - fair enough(ish) but what I don't get is exactly how many weeks or days worth at that rate I'm entitled to if I leave without having actually taken any holiday? It's really done my head in as I just thought that it would just be calculated by taking into consideration the total hours I've worked since I've been there (it's within a leave year after all). To make it a bit clearer - When I leave (without having taken a single days holiday all year), will I be paid one, two or three weeks worth at this rate or am I obliged to actually take the holiday which I am due before leaving? I'm actually moving away so just want to hand in my notice and get what I assumed would be rightfully due to me and just paid as it was accumulated.
I really would appreciate some help. This is starting to look like a disappointing end to a really terrible, depressing job. One that I've worked very hard at too...
fin54 wrote: »
I have worked for the NHS for 23 years with a 30 hr contract , an amendment was made to my contract in 2005 for 20hrs night duty and 10 hrs day or night , I have worked 30 hrs night duty since 2005 having never worked day duty.
The unit I work in is now closing (residential care of the elderly) they are now saying they have no night duty posts within the trust and I need to take a 30 hr day duty post, this is not suitable to my needs as I want to remain on nights.
I would be grateful with any help on this issue
grizzzler wrote: »
My team is currently undergoing a restructure. I work in the IT department of a department store and at the moment we support the computers and the tills. Our team is going to be split into a computer team and a till team. Out of 10 of us, 4 of us will go into the computer team and 6 will go into the till team.
But here is where things get dodgy. The computer team will work better shifts (9-5 mon to fri) and the till team will work silly shifts (which includes a late shift 1pm-9.30pm), the till team will work weekends, bank holidays will be required, "occasional" overnight shifts will be required, and travel to remote sites that are 2 1/2 hours away from where I live will be required. They've told us that our job no longer exist and we are to apply with a 1st and 2nd choice to these job roles.
In our current role bank holidays are optional, overnight shifts are not required and travel to remote sites are not required. Each of us has an individual meeting next week to consult with us. We requested a group meeting but they refused. We have all agreed that we will not apply for anything until we have greater clarification on what the new roles entail, as once we apply for a job if we get offered the poo job and turn it down we are not entitled to redundancy.
I think the reason they created a vanilla ice cream job and a poo sandwich job is to play us off against each other. Everyone will apply for the new roles with their fingers crossed to get the vanilla ice cream job but then they offer 6 of us the poo sandwich job and if we turn it down we are effectivity resigning.
I've been reading up a bit on redundancy and found out that they either have to offer us "suitable alternative work" or make us redundant, and that "suitable alternative work" has to be similar in terms of pay, hours, status and location to our current role. Given that our current job does not require bank holiday shifts, overnight shifts and travel to remote sites I do not consider this to be similar.
Can the company claim that this new role is "suitable alternative work" and claim we are resigning from our job if we do not apply for it? I am taking into account that the HR department has been doing this for years and we are all green to something like this.
What is likely to happen if we all only tick our 1st choice box and not a second choice given that we don't consider the other choice to be "suitable alternative work"?
CAB_Malvern_Hills_representative wrote: »
You are correct in what you have read up on . On the face of it this seems to be a potential redundancy situation and if all 10 of you apply for the "nice" job then there are going to be potentially 6 redundancies if none of you want the "till Job" unless they can argue that the sutiable is indeed "suitable suitable work ".Whether the alternative job that your employer offers you is suitable will depend on a number of things. These include:
the sort of job it is
the pay you will get
the hours you'll have to work
where the job is located
your skills, abilities and personal circumstances.
Your employer doesn't have to offer you a similar sort of job or a job in the same workplace. Each situation would need to be looked at on its merits in detail to decide if indeed the "poo job" is suitable but from what you have said this seems to be in doubt.
grizzzler wrote: »
What if the job is based in the same location as the current job but in the proposed role travel to a remote site is required? The job is still in Knightsbridge but the new role will require visits to Thatcham, which is 56 miles away. What chance do you think we have if we claim that is unsuitable?
Likewise with the hours. Likely it will be a day job but in the new role "occasional overnight shifts" are required. If there is no maximum shifts specified for the overnight shifts and the remote visits can we claim they are therefore indefinite? What chance do you think we have if we claim on that basis that the job is unsuitable?
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support