Back pay legislation??

pieceofcandy

Hi all

So I’m writing this on behalf of my husband. Basically in a nutshell he had an injury at work, is claiming PI as his workplace have been awful - support from Union is there BUT it was highlighted that he has been on the wrong pay grade for around 19 months. They have put in a request to correct the grade but are under the impression they don’t have to pay the back pay? Unsure of where we stand on this?? Is there an act they have broken or is it just tough?? All paperwork for training etc has been signed off so it’s official in their records etc

Many thanks in advance

Blatchford

pieceofcandy wrote: »

Hi all

So I’m writing this on behalf of my husband. Basically in a nutshell he had an injury at work, is claiming PI as his workplace have been awful - support from Union is there BUT it was highlighted that he has been on the wrong pay grade for around 19 months. They have put in a request to correct the grade but are under the impression they don’t have to pay the back pay? Unsure of where we stand on this?? Is there an act they have broken or is it just tough?? All paperwork for training etc has been signed off so it’s official in their records etc

Many thanks in advance

They are correct. There is no legislation that says that there is a "rate for the job", so unless he has something in writing confirming his actual pay (not the grade, but the pay due) and from when, then he has effectively accepted the pay that he received. So there is probably (based on him not having anything that says what his pay should be and from when) nothing the union can do as there is no legislation to back legal action. In the absence of that, it depends how powerful the union is in the workplace, and from the sound of what you are saying, the employer doesn't sound like they'd care much.

pieceofcandy

The only thing I can think is if he’s got handbooks and such but although it’s morally wrong how many people are out to feather their own nests??

The injury happened in June. That’s when this all came about and still no outcome!!! So annoying and depressing as out mortgage isn’t being paid on a credit card as I’m on maternity with 8 week old twins

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

ReadingTim

I would imagine that if the reverse was true and due to an administrative error he'd been overpaid, the company would be pretty keen to get their money back, so don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true.

However, there isn't a bit of legislation which you can point to which will force them to roll over and pay up with the phrase "it's a fair cop guv, you've got me banged to rights". Instead, you'll probably have to threaten legal action, and they've got to believe that you'll firstly bring a case, and secondly, that you'll win.

They'll settle if they think it'll cost more to fight, and that they'll lose. But if they can ignore the issue and it'll go away, they will.

Blatchford

ReadingTim wrote: »

I would imagine that if the reverse was true and due to an administrative error he'd been overpaid, the company would be pretty keen to get their money back, so don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true.
.

Unfortunately you have missed the point. Unless or until the OP comes back to confirm that they have some evidence to the contrary, the person hasn't been underpaid. They have been paid exactly what the employer agreed to pay them. They may have expected a pay rise as a result of some activity (the poster suggests that they did some training) but unless there is something that says, in black and white, that upon X event, Y always happens (so, if you pass the training course you will automatically proceed to the next grade, for example) then they are not owed anything. If such evidence exists, then there is something upon which to hang a claim of underpayment. If such evidence doesn't exist, then there is nothing in law to support a claim other than "asking nicely" - and it seems that the reason they are here is because asking nicely has resulted in the answer "no". They have support from the union already, but the poster appears to suggest that the union can't see a claim. If they were owed money, then it should be straightforward. So I assume the evidence they would need to make a claim isn't there.

ReadingTim

Blatchford wrote: »

Unfortunately you have missed the point.

No, I have not. There are actually 2 points, which you are conflating, perhaps due to the lack of clarity in the OP's post.

The first is (as you state) whether the OP's other half has, or has not, been paid correctly.

If he has not, the 2nd point is how he might go about rectifying the issue, which I answered, admittedly on the assumption that the claim for underpayment was valid. You then proceed to repeat the points I make, which, while flattering, adds nothing further to the debate.

Blatchford

ReadingTim wrote: »

No, I have not. There are actually 2 points, which you are conflating, perhaps due to the lack of clarity in the OP's post.

The first is (as you state) whether the OP's other half has, or has not, been paid correctly.

If he has not, the 2nd point is how he might go about rectifying the issue, which I answered, admittedly on the assumption that the claim for underpayment was valid. You then proceed to repeat the points I make, which, while flattering, adds nothing further to the debate.

Ah, I see. You were simply repeating everything I had already said, since the second point is irrelevant unless the individual can actually prove money is owed, which they have already said neither they nor the union appear to think they can. How very flattering that you agreed with me, but your post brought absolutely nothing new to the thread.

ReadingTim

Blatchford wrote: »

Ah, I see. You were simply repeating everything I had already said, since the second point is irrelevant unless the individual can actually prove money is owed, which they have already said neither they nor the union appear to think they can. How very flattering that you agreed with me, but your post brought absolutely nothing new to the thread.

Wonderful. Glad we agree, and pleased to offer you another opportunity to have the last word.

sportsarb

ReadingTim wrote: »

Wonderful. Glad we agree, and pleased to offer you another opportunity to have the last word.

Someone else who sees what I see :blushing: