Not paid for a disciplinary hearing. Correct?

Uncertain

DVardysShadow wrote: »

All of this addresses the point. It seems to me that the employee and OP have missed a trick

That is all well and good but, as I said earlier, these are GUIDELINES not law.

What redress is there? As far as I can seen none. I wish I was wrong but I don't think I am.

There seems to be a growing number of areas in employment where something may not be "right" but there is no realistic remedy.

I suppose the OP could demand payment or time off in lieu. If / when this is refused what then? Does he bring a tribunal claim for unlawful deduction of wages? Even if this were technically sound is it actually realistic?

Sorry!

marybelle01

MarkTed wrote: »

It was within your work hours, you exceeded because it was something very important that you couldn't just leave the office.

Well you should be paid.

Just think - what if you just left and no one rendered the meeting? The nothing happened.

The point is that it wasn't within the OP's work hours! It had nothing at all to do with his work. He volunteered to accompany a colleague, which was very selfless of him, but it doesn't change the facts. If he'd said no then the result would have been that the meeting would have taken place without his collegaue being accompanied.

BarrelScraper

In future then i guess we'll have to insist that any meeting takes place during work time.

However ..... what if the employer then says something on the following lines ....

"no meeting could ever take place when your witness is a co-worker due to it then making us too understaffed, even if the witness is from a different department".

What then? The one being disciplined would be out of luck & on their own in the meeting & from personal experience, the meeting would be conducted in a way that it really shouldn't. I think you know the route i mean.


I spoke to the person i asked to query the non-payment as this person also sometimes does the wages. They said that they would've paid me. Anyway when i caught up today they confirmed i was right - it was the meeting i wasn't paid for & that the wages clerk (who is also in-house HR) said i wasn't entitled to it.
I asked how my questioning it was received & what i was told confirmed what i suspected ......... it wasn't received well at all.

This is typical of this place. You're not allowed to question anything. All i was wanting was an answer, a yes/no & then to move on, but no, any questioning is taken as a personal attack, as though you've just killed their mother or something. It's ridiculous.

marybelle01

BarrelScraper wrote: »

In future then i guess we'll have to insist that any meeting takes place during work time.

However ..... what if the employer then says something on the following lines ....

"no meeting could ever take place when your witness is a co-worker due to it then making us too understaffed, even if the witness is from a different department".

What then? The one being disciplined would be out of luck & on their own in the meeting & from personal experience, the meeting would be conducted in a way that it really shouldn't. I think you know the route i mean.

No that one is easy. An employee is entitled to be accompanied by the colleague or trades uion rep of their choice. So the company has to reschedule to allow this.

DVardysShadow

Uncertain wrote: »

That is all well and good but, as I said earlier, these are GUIDELINES not law.

What redress is there? As far as I can seen none. I wish I was wrong but I don't think I am.

There seems to be a growing number of areas in employment where something may not be "right" but there is no realistic remedy.

I suppose the OP could demand payment or time off in lieu. If / when this is refused what then? Does he bring a tribunal claim for unlawful deduction of wages? Even if this were technically sound is it actually realistic?

Sorry!

Employment Relations Act 1999? Section 10? GUIDELINES not law?

Or has it been repealed?

princessdon

Practice as opposed to "law". If the managers claimed OT payment or TOIL/Flexi - then I'd argue the same for you.

Uncertain

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Employment Relations Act 1999? Section 10? GUIDELINES not law?

Or has it been repealed?

From April 2009 it is no longer automatically unfair dismissal if the ACAS code of practice is not followed.

I still struggle to see what realistic remedy there is if the employer refuses to pay for the accompanying person's time.

As I said, that person MIGHT be able to claim unlawful deduction of wages.

If the person being disciplined is dismissed and makes a claim then a tribunal MIGHT penalise the employer for not following the ACAS guidelines but doesn't have to.

BobQ

Uncertain wrote: »

From April 2009 it is no longer automatically unfair dismissal if the ACAS code of practice is not followed.

I still struggle to see what realistic remedy there is if the employer refuses to pay for the accompanying person's time.

As I said, that person MIGHT be able to claim unlawful deduction of wages.

If the person being disciplined is dismissed and makes a claim then a tribunal MIGHT penalise the employer for not following the ACAS guidelines but doesn't have to.

ACAS Guidelines are Guidelines I agree but since when have we passed Acts of Parliament to enact guidance?

Uncertain

BobQ wrote: »

ACAS Guidelines are Guidelines I agree but since when have we passed Acts of Parliament to enact guidance?

I agree but as I keep saying, what can you actually do about it if the firm refuse to pay? The police aren't going to come and cart them of to jail for braking the law!

There are gradually becoming more and more things that, despite not being allowed to do it, there is no effective means of enforcement.

As it stands a firm can ignore all of these guidelines / regulations / laws and their only risk is a possible uplift in the payout IF the matter gets to a tribunal AND they lose. It is no longer automatic unfair dismissal if procedures are not followed.

DVardysShadow

Uncertain wrote: »

.... There are gradually becoming more and more things that, despite not being allowed to do it, there is no effective means of enforcement.

Manipulating LIBOR and rioting are 2 examples which come to mind.