Been told not to come in, but what about pay?

poorlittlefish

My husband recently took up the offer of a permanent job that had a 6-month probationary period. Less than three weeks into the job, he's been told not to come in to do his last two shifts of the week. He's now received a letter telling him that a meeting has been arranged, the result of which could see his employment terminated, his probation period extended (even though he's only 3 weeks into the 6 months!) or alternative employment being offered. He was supposed to start his next set of shifts on Monday but has been told just to attend the meeting later on in the week and not to bother coming in his uniform - indicating they have no intention of him going to his shift afterwards.

HR have confirmed that my husband hasn't been suspended from his job, yet he's been told not to come in without explanation. He's effectively been prevented from working, but can they get away without paying him? His contract, as is common in the industry, is on a per hour basis.

During the three weeks my husband's been at the company he's been thrown in at the deep end, with colleagues telling him they're too busy to train him. Nobody has raised any concerns with my husband about his work performance, neither has he ever had any problems with previous employers and he's always on time. We are really worried that the company has already decided to fling him out on his ear without either a notice period or pay for the enforced time off.

When he started he asked for a day's annual leave because his driving test had been booked, but he was told it would have to be unpaid as "there wasn't the budget for it." Surely paid annual leave is a legal entitlement, so, if nothing else, he should have the option to take the days they're preventing him from working as paid leave?

DVardysShadow

He IS suspended, but for whatever process his employers are embarked on, it should be suspension on full pay.

The day off for a driving test is really rather odd. With so little service, the normal excuse would be 'you have not worked here long enough to be allowed to take leave' because of course, everyone is entitled to pad leave, so it should not be 'there is no budget'.

Actually, the reason given could be something of a Freudian slip pointing to the real reason. I suspect he was really taken on as summer holiday cover, which they now don't need. And given the type of outfit which would do such a thing, perhaps you can understand other employees will do their least to bring him up to speed.

Quinny_2

You state that his contract is on an per hour basis, which effectively means they can lay him off without pay.

Our youngest daughter has just started a job with a zero hours contract, which effectively means, she only gets paid for what she works, and these are becoming more common now.

I suspect that this is what your husband is on.

As for the day off. Well I thought the law had changed on holidays, whereby the employer now has to give you them upfront, as opposed to the old way of accrue, and in the event of you leaving, they claw the days given off back.

poorlittlefish

Yes, I think you're right. Plus he told them his driving test had already been booked when he started, so a reasonable employer would have made allowances. This company have written into the contract that if he leaves they'll deduct £550 to cover their recruitment and training costs, so if they push him out I hope they won't attempt to claw that back or he'll end up having worked the best part of 3 weeks for next to nothing, once his travelling costs have been considered.

LittleVoice

poorlittlefish wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. Plus he told them his driving test had already been booked when he started, so a reasonable employer would have made allowances. This company have written into the contract that if he leaves they'll deduct £550 to cover their recruitment and training costs, so if they push him out I hope they won't attempt to claw that back or he'll end up having worked the best part of 3 weeks for next to nothing, once his travelling costs have been considered.

I would say that would be an unfair contract term if it were they who dismissed rather than the employee resigning. Therefore not enforceable in those circumstances.

If they did try it, I'd want to know what recruitment costs they meant. Training costs can be a legitimate cost for a company to seek from an employee who resigns but even in those circumstances they should justify what they tried to reclaim.

LittleVoice

poorlittlefish wrote: »

My husband recently took up the offer of a permanent job that had a 6-month probationary period. Less than three weeks into the job, he's been told not to come in to do his last two shifts of the week. He's now received a letter telling him that a meeting has been arranged, the result of which could see his employment terminated, his probation period extended (even though he's only 3 weeks into the 6 months!) or alternative employment being offered. He was supposed to start his next set of shifts on Monday but has been told just to attend the meeting later on in the week and not to bother coming in his uniform - indicating they have no intention of him going to his shift afterwards.

HR have confirmed that my husband hasn't been suspended from his job, yet he's been told not to come in without explanation. He's effectively been prevented from working, but can they get away without paying him? His contract, as is common in the industry, is on a per hour basis.

During the three weeks my husband's been at the company he's been thrown in at the deep end, with colleagues telling him they're too busy to train him. Nobody has raised any concerns with my husband about his work performance, neither has he ever had any problems with previous employers and he's always on time. We are really worried that the company has already decided to fling him out on his ear without either a notice period or pay for the enforced time off.

When he started he asked for a day's annual leave because his driving test had been booked, but he was told it would have to be unpaid as "there wasn't the budget for it." Surely paid annual leave is a legal entitlement, so, if nothing else, he should have the option to take the days they're preventing him from working as paid leave?

Probationary periods mean little unless there is an improvement in the rewards received by someone no longer on probation. This might be an increase in hourly rate or eligiblity for a company sick pay scheme. Was there anything like that to look forward to? If not, don't bother about their talk of a probationary period or extending it.

It appears there is a disciplinary meeting (because of the possibility of extending the probationary period). Terminaton of employment could be redundancy. Interestng that they mention move to other work. If your OH is on more than NMW this could be a way of reducing his pay.

I agree he's been suspended. Perhaps they are avoiding using the word because that might imply they should pay him.

A rate of pay that is per hour is particularly important if he's on a zero hours (no minimum number of guaranteed hours per week - or if the minimum is what he has already completed in the week). What do his written particulars say about that?

If there is at least a guaranteed minimum number of hours, they will have to pay those while he is still employed. I wouldn't ask for paid leave while suspended because that would use up the small amount of statutory leave he will have accrued since starting and which they would have to pay him even if he were dismissed. The only exception would be if they had a company holiday year ending on 31 August and he would otherwise lose the holiday by not taking it (as it can't be paid if not taken and the employment continues into the next year).

poorlittlefish

In terms of hours his contract says, "Due to the nature of security work the company does not guarantee either maximum or minimum hours. A basic working week, unless otherwise notified, will be 48 hours a week."

patman99

Then they should pay him 48 hours per week as that is what they have stated a basic working week will be.