Latest posts:
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Re previouis post - see also advice from Jayn Bond 17 June 2007
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
May I clarify what I said and meant:
"By law, there are certain minimum steps that must be included in a disciplinary procedure - these are known as the 'statutory minimum procedures'. If your employer dismisses you without following this process, then if you make an unfair dismissal claim, the dismissal will normally be 'automatically unfair'. You normally need at least a year's service before you can make an unfair dismissal claim. " (From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10028111) Thus it follows that, if you are unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim in your first year of service, you have no redress if your employer does not follow the process.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
To answer James's point - it dosn't matter who hears it employee or public. The PRS website is
www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Sorry if this point has already been made - in general terms employees do not have the right to bring claims for unfair dismissal in the first year of their employment - exceptions being breaches of discrimination laws etc. This being the case there is no requirement on employers to use the statutory disciplinary procedures for employees who have worked for less than a year. Many contracts, including ours, make clear that the company reserves the right to dismiss an employee during their first year without using the disciplinary procerdure but I don't believe the contract has to say this in order for the dismiissal to take place.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Does the company pay more than SSP? If not, and a doctor signs a sick note, the employer has no choice. If the company pays its own sick pay in addition to SSP then, depending on the wording of the contract, they may be able to claim that this is not a "sickness" and not pay the addition. However, with a sick note, the employee can still take time off work and claim SSP. Obviously holiday pay is likely to leave the individual better off but any attempt to force the employee would be grounds for a grievance under the statutory grievance procedure.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Ref Les Potter's post - although a company has no control over what its employees do during the 20 minute break the WTR entitles them to, it has no obligation to facilitate smoking in any way. It is under no obligation to provide time or place in which the employees can smoke.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Ref Glenn Shelton's post - if these smoking breaks are in addition to your legal entitlement under the WTR then, at first sight, this would appear to be discriminatory. As a Personnel Manager myself, I would suggest this is something your HR department should take a very careful look at. Alternatively, you would certainly be entitled to raise a formal grievance if you (or non-smokers) are not allowed comparable periods of break.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
You may wish to know that the Performing Rights Society will expect you to have a licence if you are playing a radio where others can hear it.
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Thanks - I am fully awaree of the training requirements. It was the " a minimum of 1 hours training in the use of portable fire equipment.." I was taking issue with - it simply is not there!
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
Les Potter wrote "If you are an employer you are currently reguired, under the regulatory reform ( fire safety) order 2005 to give all staff a minimum of 1 hours training in the use of portable fire equipment.. this now extendend to businesses where all of the staff are self employed but work for the same company. "
As far as I am aware, there is no such requirement. Could Les indicate where he found this?
Rate this!
Gavin Inches
Member - 11 posts
I am interested to see Peter Travers suggestion that one might do without Fire Extinguishers. I think it would be a very brave "Responsible Person" whose Fire Risk Assessment would determine that in their premises these were not required. I would suggest that anyone thinking along these lines should study carefully Section 13 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 before making any such decision.
0 (0)
