We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Do I have a leg to stand on?

1235

Comments

  • vassa wrote: »
    I didn't know OP was a company.

    And i'm not reading through the entire thread, i responded to the OP. All my advice here has been hypothetical. If a contract says something, it says something, regardless of what someone's employment status is. If it turns out the contract actually says something else then things change. My original premise was that if you sign a contract saying 'X is true unless Y', if Y never happens than X must be honoured.
    Yeah, unless there is another clause saying something completely different. That's why it is good to actually read threads...
    Sanctimonious Veggie. GYO-er. Seed Saver. Get in.
  • So do I take it that regardless of what the contracts say I can't really get my money back?
  • Southend1
    Southend1 Posts: 3,362 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Missbehave wrote: »
    So do I take it that regardless of what the contracts say I can't really get my money back?

    Well it sounds to me like the contract was that you must do a certain number of shifts to be paid at the higher rate and you didn't do that number. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. No leg to stand on. Sorry.
  • Dimey
    Dimey Posts: 1,434 Forumite
    Post 25 looks more like a job description and standards of performance than a contract of employment to me.

    As the higher rate would be paid until OP resigned or stepped down. And apparently no notice period was put in the "contract" then would it be reasonable to expect the company to pay the higher rate pro-rata to the date OP was sacked. And would a notice period be fair commensurate with the frequency of pay? ie - weekly paid then one week's notice?

    I think OP should take what she thinks is her employment contract to a solicitor for a first half hour free consultation for a quick check that the agreement is as OP thinks it is.

    Then if the contract is pretty sound, she can decide whether to write (email and post - signed for) to give the employer the chance to pay and if not then off to online small claims. (fast before the company closes).

    IMO - If it is a US only company then walk away.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "Any more posts you want to make on something you obviously know very little about?"
    Is an actual reaction to my posts, so please don't rely on anything I say. :)
  • This company won't close they have been around for years and have a pretty bad name already. Clauses such as not reaching a certain total a month means you won't be paid for what you have done. And they pay monthly so if it had been weekly then I would have received the higher rate. I'm going to fight it and see how I get on.
  • vassa
    vassa Posts: 288 Forumite
    Southend1 wrote: »
    Y did happen though!
    OP didn't quit or step down. Basic English was used in the opening post, i responded to it. It's pretty simple really.
    Yeah, unless there is another clause saying something completely different. That's why it is good to actually read threads...
    Pity i don't have a time machine then as my original comment came before that revelation came to light, and my subsequent posts were merely me stating the obvious to people who can't read plain basic English.
  • Southend1
    Southend1 Posts: 3,362 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    vassa wrote: »
    OP didn't quit or step down. Basic English was used in the opening post, i responded to it. It's pretty simple really.


    Pity i don't have a time machine then as my original comment came before that revelation came to light, and my subsequent posts were merely me stating the obvious to people who can't read plain basic English.

    It's clear you still haven't read the thread! It would be simple were there not a document setting out additional terms.

    You probably should read all the information provided by OP before accusing anyone of not being able to read because at the moment it looks like you're the only one here who can't read!
  • vassa wrote: »
    OP didn't quit or step down. Basic English was used in the opening post, i responded to it. It's pretty simple really.


    Pity i don't have a time machine then as my original comment came before that revelation came to light, and my subsequent posts were merely me stating the obvious to people who can't read plain basic English.

    Your time machine would be called a 'clock', as the post detailing the hours worked for the higher rate was in post 11, and your first comment was at post 19. For those that don't understand how time works, your post was after the post with the necessary information in it.
    Sanctimonious Veggie. GYO-er. Seed Saver. Get in.
  • Missme
    Missme Posts: 293 Forumite
    I've read the thread and i really don't understand why vassa's take on things is being so vehemently poo-pooed. And I'm surprised no one has asked why the OP was sacked.

    Here's what I think:

    If the sacking was because she didn't meet the terms of supply, then that should have been advised and she should have been given the opportunity to improve.

    If the terms of supply are such that they are impossible to meet then (OP shouldn't have signed the contract!) the terms may be deemed unfair and any sanction unenforceable.

    If, as the OP states, there is no clause relating to client termination of the contract no one can assume they can do as they please. There should (even with a clause) be notice.

    Some info here but get some proper advice OP and weigh up if your losses are worth the possible expense of a claim
  • Southend1
    Southend1 Posts: 3,362 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Missme wrote: »
    I've read the thread and i really don't understand why vassa's take on things is being so vehemently poo-pooed.

    Because when asked for his/her take on the additional terms described in the email to OP, vassa stated that he hasn't/won't read the thread beyond post 1 therefore can't/won't comment, then accused other posters of not being able to read.

    He/she may be right but it's hard to tell if rather than engaging with other forum users he/she chooses to attack them!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.