Asked to provide remedies sought statement to employer

Mr_Gashead

Cheers sangie,

I understand that the company would not have costed for 28 days. Although if due diligence was carried out and the terms of our contracts was looked at properly then they should have costed for the holiday entitlement. My understanding is for them to be able to change a term then a consultation would need to take place.

We were advised of a number of changes to our terms and condition such as pay dates and the like but holiday entitlement was not mentioned in any of those correspondence.

The change of company was rushed through due to the suddenness of the previous company going bust. But the glaring errors in the new contract demonstrates a complete lack Of thoroughness from the new company.

• it says 48hrs per week when in fact I work 42. ( contractually now I’m entitled to be paid for 48 hours even if I don’t work those)

• it also says I accrue holiday based on the average hours/days worked over the previous 17 weeks. I have gone to my employer this week asking for the 3 days extra holiday I’ve accrued due to working overtime. This is typically used for employees on a zero hour contract but they have put this clause into my contract.

Even when you strip it back to the black and white of the contract

48hrs a week over 4 days is a holiday entitlement of 23 days and not the 20 that I’ve been given.

It’s very complicated and confused but this is all there own doing in my opinion.

Takeaway_Addict

Mr_Gashead wrote: »

Cheers sangie,

I understand that the company would not have costed for 28 days. Although if due diligence was carried out and the terms of our contracts was looked at properly then they should have costed for the holiday entitlement. My understanding is for them to be able to change a term then a consultation would need to take place.

We were advised of a number of changes to our terms and condition such as pay dates and the like but holiday entitlement was not mentioned in any of those correspondence.

The change of company was rushed through due to the suddenness of the previous company going bust. But the glaring errors in the new contract demonstrates a complete lack Of thoroughness from the new company.

• it says 48hrs per week when in fact I work 42. ( contractually now I’m entitled to be paid for 48 hours even if I don’t work those)

• it also says I accrue holiday based on the average hours/days worked over the previous 17 weeks. I have gone to my employer this week asking for the 3 days extra holiday I’ve accrued due to working overtime. This is typically used for employees on a zero hour contract but they have put this clause into my contract.

Even when you strip it back to the black and white of the contract

48hrs a week over 4 days is a holiday entitlement of 23 days and not the 20 that I’ve been given.

It’s very complicated and confused but this is all there own doing in my opinion.

So one company goes bust, probably partly due to the generous terms and you're deciding to put your head above the parapet....


nice

Mr_Gashead

Takeaway,

I’m slightly confused as to what you mean. If your terms and conditions were changed without the correct formal process taking place would you not hold your employer to account? The tribunal is my last resort after 10 months of attempting to get a satisfactory answer from my employer.

sangie595

I don't agree with the implication made by Takeaway, but the underlying "message" is the warning. That's exactly how the employer is likely to take this - and I'm assuming that you are right about it all. Your head is so far over the parapet that it could be hit with a plate of jelly! The first sign of your company losing money or going under, and, if the employer is remotely like I expect, your name will be at the top of the redundancies list, even if other savings could avoid redundancies. That's making the assumption that you aren't being watched very carefully right now for the slightest mistakes, because no employee is so perfect that they don't misstep, and you might find disciplinaries starting to pile up which will mean that you never get to redundancy.

One way or another, I don't see the "duration of your employment" is likely to be the sticking point for negotiations (precedent might be) - unless I am very much mistaken that won't bee a huge financial burden on them because it won't be very long! I'd certainly be looking for my next employer right now if I were in your shoes. In fact, I'd have done that before going to a tribunal, and only made a claim once I was safely out of the door.

nicechap

OP, I don't mean to be rude but I really do think you need to take independent advice.

Employment law is not the same as say consumer or property law. Contracts can be formed by behavior or custom & practice. These actions can override anything written - so despite what an employment contract might say or doesn't say, if it was meant to mean something else, and people behave accordingly, that's what formed.

I accept you might not have agreed to the current interpretation of your leave entitlement but I'm guessing other people have agreed and you have continued to work there under the new rules. Please go and see a lawyer, many offer free initial consultations.

sangie595

nicechap wrote: »

OP, I don't mean to be rude but I really do think you need to take independent advice.

Employment law is not the same as say consumer or property law. Contracts can be formed by behavior or custom & practice. These actions can override anything written - so despite what an employment contract might say or doesn't say, if it was meant to mean something else, and people behave accordingly, that's what formed.

I accept you might not have agreed to the current interpretation of your leave entitlement but I'm guessing other people have agreed and you have continued to work there under the new rules. Please go and see a lawyer, many offer free initial consultations.

I'd often agree, but it's too late. I suspect that even if the OP is correct, they are too late - a claim ten months later may well be out of time and the term deemed to have been agreed anyway. But legal advice now is redundant.... The claim is submitted, the die is cast, and the employer won't forget this regardless of who is correct.

Mr_Gashead

I appreciate the advice from both of you,

You both make a lot of sense. Although this probably makes no difference I’m employed by a security company that provides corporate security for our customer, i very rarely see my bosses from the company I work for, and we are treated as if we actually work for our customer. my line manager has supported me throughout this process. I am aware that I may have come across like I’m being a nuisance and like you say “putting myself above the parapet”.

Nobody from my team agrees to the new terms and was explicitly told that if we provide a copy of our previous contract then that would be honoured. Fortunately or possibly unfortunately for me I was the only person that had a copy of the previous contract.

I hope that I have acted professionally throughout the process and I have not asked for anything that could be considered unreasonable.

In my view there is a difference of opinion in regards to what was said and what happened during the transfer and it requires an impartial person to disseminate the info and make a decision.

If I’m not successful then so be it. I will continue to do my job to the best of my ability. Exactly the same as if my claim was successful.

sangie595

Regrettably, many employers don't have the same approach. I hope yours can rise above it. But even more now that I know the industry, I doubt it.