Help with contracts

Ollywood

Hi all,

My partner is having some problems.. Basically she is temping and has now for 2 years at a company and I think it is wrong they have never offered her more. She has no sick pay no bank holiday benefits etc..

But they said they were making her permanent In April and every time she mentioned this they said the boss was making up her contract and sorting it out.. Now its August and no contract and now she will be leaving in September and has a letter confirmed which is disgusting..
They said in her letter thanks for 12 months of work even tho she has been there two years..

what i need advice with is? Is she entitled to anything and what can she do with the situation, because they promised her a fulltime contract and have messed her about.. to me they have a verbal contract? I just need some advice.. It has upset her and i THINK its disgusting the way she has been treated.. they are trying to make out she has worked 12 months instead of two...

ANY HR or business people give me any advice as I am not very good with all this legal side.

Thanks in advance..

Ollie

KiKi

When you say 'temping' can you confirm that she's been temping through an agency?

If so, then she has no rights at all, I'm afraid. They may have promised a permanent role, but they don't have to provide one, and don't have to live up to that promise. It may be very upsetting, but she stands nowhere, legally.

However, she should have had paid holiday through the agency, and she will have been entitled to SSP as well.

I doubt they're trying to make out she's only worked there 12 months and not two years (the agency would have timesheets to disprove this anyway) - they probably just made a mistake in the letter. I think you're reading too much into it because you're so angry about it. But whilst they've messed her about, it doesn't amount to a contract.

HTH
KiKi

Ollywood

Hey sorry,

no she was with the actual company temping.. recruitment. She got made redundant and re offered her job back doing a nother job...

Thanks

MissSarah1972

Ollywood wrote: »

Hey sorry,

no she was with the actual company temping.. recruitment. She got made redundant and re offered her job back doing a nother job...

Thanks

Then if you are made redudant and taken back on they normally do not run as concurrent employment but 2 seperate cases therefore if she had the last job 12 months she has only been there 12 months

KiKi

Ollywood wrote: »

Hey sorry,

no she was with the actual company temping.. recruitment. She got made redundant and re offered her job back doing a nother job...

Thanks

Sorry, that's still not clear.

She was either working directly for an organisation (had a contract with them), or she was supplied by an agency (and had a contract with the agency).

The latter is usually what 'temping' is.

Can you please explain what you mean by being made redundant (from a perm job with a contract with the employer), and then offered her job 'doing another job'?

And what did you originally mean by temping? Was she on a fixed-term contract if not employed by an agency?

KiKi

Ollywood

Sorry guys, as I said I am rubbish at this legal stuff..

She was made redundant before from the company and got another job was there for about 6 months and they re-employed her (now has been there 2 years and has all the pay slips) this was a contract with the company and she is temping but they kept her on for 2 years due to being busy. They promised her full time contract and permanent, meaning her money would be same as others and benefits etc..

yes she must of been on a fixed term contract but they extended it and then said they would make her permanent.. if this make sense... Its handled very bad.. in plain terms she got reemployed and was never given a permanent contract, she had to do all the late shifts and like the others on better money.. also she had no bank holiday pay rubbish holiday and no sick pay.. Then they promised her a full time contract in feb (Earlier this year) this year and it has taken them 6 or so months to tell her your going end of the month... its handled very wrong and every time she has asked they dismiss it..

Oh its an in house agency team she is temping wit...

Thanks

KiKi

Ollywood wrote: »

Sorry guys, as I said I am rubbish at this legal stuff..

No problem - but her employment status is critical in determining whether or not she has any rights, hence all the questions.

She was made redundant before from the company and got another job was there for about 6 months

So she was made redundant, but got another job in the same company. So was she:

a) paid redundancy, left, then applied for / was offered another job? Ie, there was a break in between this happening?

or

b) made redundant from her job but immediately offered and accepted another job with no breaks in between the two?

Why did this job end after 6 months? Who was her contract with - the organisation or an agency?

and they re-employed her (now has been there 2 years and has all the pay slips) this was a contract with the company and she is temping but they kept her on for 2 years due to being busy.

Is this 2 years:

a) Separate to the 6 months you mentioned before?
b) Part of that 6 months?

This is critical: is her contract with the in-house *agency* or with the company itself? If it is a proper in-house agency it will not be the same company as the company itself, if it's operating as a recruitment agency. (This is not the same as a recruitment team dealing with temps who come into the organisation.)

You need to pull out her contract to confirm what it says about her employment status and who it's with. You should also check her payslips, and the name of the company on there.

hey promised her full time contract and permanent, meaning her money would be same as others and benefits etc..

Means nothing, I'm afraid.

yes she must of been on a fixed term contract

Not if she had a contract with the agency, she won't have been. Please ask her to get her contract out and see what it says.

Sorry to not give a definitive answer, but if they do run a proper in-house recruitment agency and that's who her contract is with (ie, a large organisation running it's own recruitment business in an agency capacity) then she has no rights. If her contract is with the *company* but recruited through a team who bring in 'temps' that may be different - but then she's not a temp nor agency staff.

Her employment status is the difference between no rights at all, and possible unfair dismissal - but as you keep using the term 'temp' and agency I suspect it's not going to be the answer you want, I'm afraid. Get her contract out and come back and post what it says.

KiKi

getmore4less

You need to make it clear the exact dates she has worked.

you need to try to clarify what sort of contract she was on.

For continuity of employment she will have been on contract for every week, this can be paid or holiday or sick or unpiad contract time but if they say she was on a recuring casual/temp contract any break of a week could break the continuity

She should have got holiday pay. 5.6 weeks (28days if fulltime 5days+)

how many holidays did she get?

Once you have a years continuous service you have the same rights as a permanent anyway so thye can't just say thanks(if on contract), they have to have fair reason like redundancy, which after two needs to be paid.

KiKi

getmore4less wrote: »

Once you have a years continuous service you have the same rights as a permanent anyway so thye can't just say thanks, they have to have fair reason like redundancy, which after two needs to be paid.

You have the same rights under 12 months anyway - it's only unfair dismissal that hits after a year. And only if her contract is with the company and not the agency.

(And anyone else reading who may be in the same position, it's one year if employed before April 6th, two years for employment after this point).

LittleVoice

Agency workers working in the same position for more than 12 weeks are entitled to pay equivalent to a directly employed worker doing the same work.

Then they are also entitled to the same level of holiday as a directly employed person. So if a direct recruit would have more than the statutory minimum they are entitled to the enhanced holiday entitlement too.

marybelle01

LittleVoice wrote: »

Agency workers working in the same position for more than 12 weeks are entitled to pay equivalent to a directly employed worker doing the same work.

Then they are also entitled to the same level of holiday as a directly employed person. So if a direct recruit would have more than the statutory minimum they are entitled to the enhanced holiday entitlement too.

Not if they work for an "in house agency" they aren't. And not pay if they are employed under the swedish derogation.