6 month contracts and sick pay

zak999

Hi,
Can you advise me pls?

I work in a busy boat yard (in UK), and have recently been on a 6 monthly signed contract. (reluctantly, as I was self employed there) I haven't signed the next one because I'm unhappy with the sick pay wording.

In brief the contract says i am entitled , for 1st 4 months SSP only, after that 1 weeks normal pay.

I object to going back to SSP only for 1st four months on every renewed contract,

Also boss is saying that if I injure myself at work (eg break a leg) they will have to pay me anyway. They are a very tight company so I doubt it.

Where do I stand please?

rgds

Uncertain

If you injure yourself at work and IT WAS THE EMPLOYER'S FAULT you may be able to sue for compensation. This would include loss of earnings.

Regarding sick pay, SSP is a legal right (assuming you qualify), anything else is a matter for negotiation.

There is a strong argument that if the next contract follows on immediately it is a continuation and there should be no further qualifying periods.

zak999

Ok thanks for that.

Last thing I would want to do is sue for compensation so it seems if I have an accident at work, whether its mine or the employers fault I wouldn't be eligible for sick pay beyond 1 week in a 6 month contract (after 4 months!!) and then SSP Very frustrating as all the other guys are entitled to 20 days and then 20 half pay.

Regarding continuation, I did a year self employed, 6 months on contract and then another 6 months without signing. Does working without contract make much difference in employee rights?

rgds

LittleVoice

zak999 wrote: »

Ok thanks for that.

Last thing I would want to do is sue for compensation so it seems if I have an accident at work, whether its mine or the employers fault I wouldn't be eligible for sick pay beyond 1 week in a 6 month contract (after 4 months!!) and then SSP Very frustrating as all the other guys are entitled to 20 days and then 20 half pay.

Regarding continuation, I did a year self employed, 6 months on contract and then another 6 months without signing. Does working without contract make much difference in employee rights?

rgds

Continuation.

Do you mean that the 6-month was an employment contract and that you continued to work beyond the original 6-month period but with no later written terms of employment being given to you after the end of the first six months other than that, four months after the "end" of the first six months, you have been given a new written contract to sign?

Employment contracts do not have to be signed by anyone. Turning up for work and being paid for it counts as a contract.

So it appears your first contract actually lasted ten months.

If you don't register your discontent with the terms of the contract they have now presented to you, you could be deemed to have accepted the terms. So, irrespective of whether you have signed it, you would be working on the new contract unless you say you don't accept those terms.

zak999

Thanks for the replies. To clarify

- I worked 12 months self employed solely at this firm
- Then I was asked to sign a 6 month paye hourly paid contract (with the condition that there was no sick pay for the first 4 months, but one week full sick pay after that)
- I was then asked to sign a similar 6 month contract with the same terms. I objected to the no sick pay for 4 month again term and continued to work without signing a contract

6 months is up again and I am having the same problem. I have asked strongly for the 4 month clause to be removed.

There is also a suggestion that as I have been there two years I have some 'employee' rights, I'm not looking for redundancy or anything like that. My main concern is that if I have an injury (etc) at work (the employers fault or not), that I get a fair amount of sick pay. All the other employees get up to 30 days, I guess I just joined at a different time in employee welfare!!

LittleVoice

zak999 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. To clarify

- I worked 12 months self employed solely at this firm (So no contribution to continuation of employment.)
- Then I was asked to sign a 6 month paye hourly paid contract (with the condition that there was no sick pay for the first 4 months, but one week full sick pay after that) (That must have been no company sick pay for the first 4 months, SSP would still be payable where appropriate.)
- I was then asked to sign a similar 6 month contract with the same terms. I objected to the no sick pay for 4 month again term and continued to work without signing a contract (What form did this objection take: did you say you would work under protest as far as this term was concerned? If you didn't formally object in this way, you are likely to be deemed to have accepted those terms. As you are now being asked to sign a new contract it seems that certainly the company would claim you had accepted the second contract notwithstanding you did not sign it.)

6 months is up again and I am having the same problem. I have asked strongly for the 4 month clause to be removed.

There is also a suggestion that as I have been there two years (As an employee you have not been there two years but coming up to one year) I have some 'employee' rights (you have some rights from Day One of employment. You need to know which rights you think you have), I'm not looking for redundancy or anything like that. My main concern is that if I have an injury (etc) at work (the employers fault or not), that I get a fair amount of sick pay. All the other employees get up to 30 days, I guess I just joined at a different time in employee welfare!!

................