Civil Service - Help Please

Genuineguy03

@hyubh - I'm merely responding to other peoples questions/reponses
to me, whilst clarifying my position. There's no intent ony part to derail the thread, or any thread.

nicechap

sammyjammy wrote: »

Just to muddy the waters I'm full-time and my overtime rate is my weekly salary/37 so the "paid lunch hour" doesn't really make any sense....

Actually, IMHO, that's really helpful to the OP's question The full time contact is 42 hours, 37 paid and 5 compulsory unpaid break. The part time is 30 hours paid, and 0 compulsory unpaid break.

Money_saving_maniac

Finally got through to recruitment and they are going to check with HR what my actual salary would be.
Unbelievable way to recruit people!

Money_saving_maniac

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@hyubh - I'm merely responding to other peoples questions/reponses
to me, whilst clarifying my position. There's no intent ony part to derail the thread, or any thread.

Might be no intent mate but you didn't actually care did you.

Genuineguy03

Actually I do care. But what you may not realise is that nicechap had trolled me in another thread around the same time as his post where he reference ego. He'd also shamefully mocked another poster seeking help. That was before others joined in. Most of yesterday they were trying to discredit my advice in other threads, yet despite me providing case law to back up my advice, and despite asking them to provide evidence to the contrary, noone did.

I know nicechap is helping you here, but your issue is pretty straight forward. But don't presume everyone here is helpful or nice, they are far from it.

By way, if you are doing less than full time hours due to child care responsabilities and not getting paid lunch and others were, it may have been discrimination against you, though probably unintentional. Hence why I asked for what I asked for. So could better help you.

Money_saving_maniac

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Actually I do care. But what you may not realise is that nicechap had trolled me in another thread around the same time as his post where he reference ego. He'd also shamefully mocked another poster seeking help. That was before others joined in. Most of yesterday they were trying to discredit my advice in other threads, yet despite me providing case law to back up my advice, and despite asking them to provide evidence to the contrary, noone did.

I know nicechap is helping you here, but your issue is pretty straight forward. But don't presume everyone here is helpful or nice, they are far from it.

By way, if you are doing less than full time hours due to child care responsabilities and not getting paid lunch and others were, it may have been discrimination against you, though probably unintentional. Hence why I asked for what I asked for. So could better help you.

No, you don't care I've just been reading your answers in some other thread, it's obvious you actually have no knowledge of anything you've posted about and have just googled.

For your information to save you googlng it is not legal to treat part time workers less favourably than full time workers regardless of their reason for working part time. You might want to brush up on it, try Google now I've told you about it.

Genuineguy03

Hmmm treating part time worker less favourably than a full time worker (which is something everyone knows) vs sexual discrimination.

Sexual discrimination has more weight due to it being a protected characteristic, whilst getting unpaid break when part time whilst full time workers get paid breaks isnt.. But then you must that, of did you? No doubt you will say you did now.

And please dont assume you know more than I do on employment law. Or that I was wrong in law on other threads when i posted case law that backed it up, when everyone who claimed I was wrong either couldn't bring anything to back up their agruement that I was wrong. Hell they were all saying reduced hours wasn't a reasonable adjustment, quess what? I posted two ECJ case laws to back up that reduced hours are a reasonable adjustment. The disagreement about when a condition is a disability, I was right about too.

If you going to use other threads against me, I suggest you read them right to the end first.

As for googled, that just your assumption, and your free to assume what you like. But that doesn't make your assumption true. Its also ever so easy for people disagree online to accuse the other of googling the answer, just to discredit or out of spite for being proven wrong.

Now as far as I'm concerned I'm done in this thread.

Good luck to you though.

Genuineguy03

Oh one more thing. Its not "illegal" to treat part time employees less favourably than full time employees. Its actually unlaw. There's is a difference. Don't worry, easy mistake to make.

dizzybuff

I work in civil service and I dont get paid my half hour compulsory lunch break. Your not at your desk so why would thwy pay you

nicechap

Not sure what unlaw is, maybe its like the undead given the zombie like contributions.

Reminds me of an old joke though:

Whats the difference between unlawful and illegal?

One is breaking the law, the other is a sick bird.