Tupe stress

[Eloise01]

Re: Tupe stress

My original employment with S3 commenced June 2002.

I was employed by S3 since that date not through an agency.

My contractual terms were 40 hours per week with the standard gov guide lines regarding short time working ect.

When we transferred over from S3 to PSL we were given new contracts to sign with our new employer as PSL on the contract. When we had our contracts terminated by PSL our previous employer who we had actually never left as this was only a payroll transfer took us back on under our original contract terms minus the length of service. Only a verbal assurance that this will be honored remains

In that case I cannot see the employers argument - the employment should be continuous. I do have concerns about this though because I cannot see the relevance of signing a contract with something that is just a payroll company. What we are unable to ascertain in this is whether something else went on that you do not know about, and the employer is trying to pull a fast one - which seems likley since there is no legal reason for continuous service to be broken that I can see. Is anyone in a union.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Tupe stress

Only on this thread

[Eloise01]

Re: Tupe stress

An example of signing away a statutory employment right will be the Working Time Directive

Statutory provision states that a worker can work for a maximum of a 48 hour week

Yet their is provision for an "opt out" of that statutory legislation

I do not wish to prolong an irrelevant debate but I am afraid that information on these threads is important in terms of accuracy, or people may be mislead into believing something that is wrong. There is a difference between a statutory right and a statutory entitlement. The 48 hour week is an entitlement, not a right; just as redundancy is an entitlement and not a right. The two things are very different. You can, generally speaking, with few exceptions, waive entitlements; you cannot waive rights.

[gravytrain]

Re: Tupe stress

Only on this thread

Shame it would have benefited from another point of view.

[stiffed]

Re: Tupe stress

Is anyone in a union.

There is no union in the factory although one of my work mates has a union solicitor on this as we speak.

There are around 120 people who have been affected by this.

[gravytrain]

Re: Tupe stress

I do not wish to prolong an irrelevant debate but I am afraid that information on these threads is important in terms of accuracy, or people may be mislead into believing something that is wrong. There is a difference between a statutory right and a statutory entitlement. The 48 hour week is an entitlement, not a right; just as redundancy is an entitlement and not a right. The two things are very different. You can, generally speaking, with few exceptions, waive entitlements; you cannot waive rights.

Not with you here, surely if you are entitled to something under legislation it becomes your right. i can see the difference between a statutory entitlement and a statutory duty if that is what you mean.

[Eloise01]

Re: Tupe stress

There is no union in the factory although one of my work mates has a union solicitor on this as we speak.

There are around 120 people who have been affected by this.

I apologise for the distractions, but I am afraid that yours is not the only thread suffering from them.

If I may... this thread is bothering me because employers are sometimes stupid, but seldom quite this stupid. It is possible that they are simply trying to break your continuous service - but this is such a fundamental in law that it seems incredulous they would be so crass about it. There are a dozen easier ways that I could think of but won't mention here in case any employers are hanging around!

I know you have already answered this, but bear with me for the sake of being utterly clear - you said that your contract was for 40 hours per week. Your actual contract said that? And which one - we are up to three and counting - your original, the one with the payroll company, and the new one. You are positive it doesn't say "up to 40 hours" or anything that qualifies the 40 hours? This is not a question about what hours to actually work, but the contractual hours, and I just want to be certain. This is very important - and the reason why I could not assume information you hadn't given me - because zero hours contracts are for workers not employees, and on zero hours contracts workers are commonly hourly paid. It doesn't make a lot of sense to most people, but workers and employees are very different things - a worker can work for a company for 20 years and be entitled to no redundancy pay if their job goes, cannot make a claim for unfair dismissal, and so on. With such contracts the first test is whether the contract is a true zero hour contract or not, because continuous service doesn't accrue to them. It's employment law 101 for anyone with a knowledge of the area. Do you see why the question is important, and why you have to be sure of the answer?

Secondly - this payroll company. It was not by any chance an umbrella company was it? You are certain that they simplly processed your pay for the company? The reason I am asking this is I want to be quite certain that you were not tricked into going self-employed!

Thirdly - and this is the Ł1 million stupid question - what date on the contract are we talking about? There should be two. On the front page there should be a line that reads something like "For the purposes of continuous employment, your employment started on XXXX" - and on the last page (usually) there is the date the contract was issued - you usually sign and date this. Are you certain that you haven't mixed the two dates up?

Lastly - have tyou compared all the contracts to see if anything has changed? Because it is just possible that the thing being sneaked past you is something else!

[Eloise01]

Re: Tupe stress

Not with you here, surely if you are entitled to something under legislation it becomes your right. i can see the difference between a statutory entitlement and a statutory duty if that is what you mean.

No it wasn't. I said what I meant, but I am afraid that I don't have the time to teach law classes on here. You will just have to accept that you don't understand what I am talking about. The OP's issue is not about rights or entitlements, and I would prefer to focus on the issue in hand and not distractions.

[gravytrain]

Re: Tupe stress

No it wasn't. I said what I meant, but I am afraid that I don't have the time to teach law classes on here. You will just have to accept that you don't understand what I am talking about. The OP's issue is not about rights or entitlements, and I would prefer to focus on the issue in hand and not distractions.

Neither the time nor the knowledge it seems, although certainly the arrogance to think you can.

[stiffed]

Re: Tupe stress

Ok my contract reads;- your normal hours of work are 40 hours/week from 6.30am to 3.00pm Monday to Friday with 30 min. Unpaid lunch break each day.

I am certain that PSL is not an umbrella company. PSL as a company was only created a few weeks before taking on the employees from S3.

I only have one contract at this time my most recent. This has two dates on it my start date 18-3-2013 and the contract issue date 8-4-2013.

Although we signed new contracts for PSL no one received a copy of the same.

[stiffed]

Re: Tupe stress

Please dont take this the wrong way Gravytrain but if your not going to offer some useful help or advice could you refrain from posting your grievances to other members posts on my thread.

Thanks

[Eloise01]

Re: Tupe stress

Ok my contract reads;- your normal hours of work are 40 hours/week from 6.30am to 3.00pm Monday to Friday with 30 min. Unpaid lunch break each day.

I am certain that PSL is not an umbrella company. PSL as a company was only created a few weeks before taking on the employees from S3.

I only have one contract at this time my most recent. This has two dates on it my start date 18-3-2013 and the contract issue date 8-4-2013.

Although we signed new contracts for PSL no one received a copy of the same.

Oh I am not liking that last line! But I think I am at a loss to know what is going on without information that is obviously missing and you don't have it!

At this stage I would be inclined to write to the employer, point out that they have made an error in the date of your continuous employment, which started on XXX and you will be pleased to receive an amended copy with the correct date. And the more of you who write that letter the better.