OP, what does your contract of employment say? Is there a notice period? If so, then they are contractually obliged to honour that, and they would be in breach of contract if they didn't.
the employer can pay in lieu of notice. the OP hasn't said this hasn't been paid or is due, so there is nothing to suggest any contractual obligations haven't been met based on what the OP says
In the company I work for, the notice period is one week until the employee has passed their probationary period. It then increases to 1, 3, or 6 months depending on the role.
stat notice is a minimum of a week for over a month service up to 2 years service, so with over a months service they just need to pay a weeks pay in lieu unless the contract states otherwise (ie. more)
You may also be able to claim wrongful termination (note, this is different to unfair dismissal), if the company did not follow its own disciplinary policy.
with a less than 2 years service, unless the reason for dimissal is due to illegal discrimination, which doesn't appear to be the case here, the OP can't make a succesful tribunal complaint in this case
Have they given you a written termination letter?
they don't have to give one either. but if they did then the details should help, but as long as they pay hours worked plus pay in lieu of notice if none was given and unused holiday entitlement, then they don't seem to have done anything illegal. if it's a zero hours contract then no pay in lieu of notice may be required
the employer can pay in lieu of notice. the OP hasn't said this hasn't been paid or is due, so there is nothing to suggest any contractual obligations haven't been met based on what the OP says
In the course of your rush to impress everyone with your huge knowledge it would seem you've rather missed the whole point of the thread.
To top things off an the reason im looking at taking things further has been compounded by the fact that I was expecting my week in hand an any holidays owed but I was only paid for holidays owed an not my week in hand.
Can anyone advise if this is acceptable?
wrong again. have a read what he said, then think about it. then look back at my previous replies
In your previous replies you misinterpreted what the OP meant by 'week in hand', albeit incorrect terminology but clear to anyone else what was meant so I suggest you go read what he said again and think about it and whilst you're at it maybe locate the shift key on your keyboard.
the employer can pay in lieu of notice. the OP hasn't said this hasn't been paid or is due, so there is nothing to suggest any contractual obligations haven't been met based on what the OP says
stat notice is a minimum of a week for over a month service up to 2 years service, so with over a months service they just need to pay a weeks pay in lieu unless the contract states otherwise (ie. more)
with a less than 2 years service, unless the reason for dimissal is due to illegal discrimination, which doesn't appear to be the case here, the OP can't make a succesful tribunal complaint in this case
they don't have to give one either. but if they did then the details should help, but as long as they pay hours worked plus pay in lieu of notice if none was given and unused holiday entitlement, then they don't seem to have done anything illegal. if it's a zero hours contract then no pay in lieu of notice may be required
Firstly, I did not say the employer needed to provide a letter. As you say, it would be helpful to know their formal position, which is why I asked. Although, if the contract states termination is subject to written notice, (which can include termination on immediate written notice), then the employer is contractually obliged to provide that written notice.
Secondly, wrongful termination is different to unfair dismissal, and is actionable no matter how long an employee has been employed. Unlike unfair dismissal, wrongful termination is not related to the reasons for dismissal. Wrongful termination would occur if the employer has not terminated the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of that contract. For example if the correct notice has not been given, or disciplinary procedures have not been followed, where those procedures form part of the contract.
As to your point about enhanced contractual notice prevailing over any statutory minimum. Of course it does - that was my point also, in answer to other posts that suggested the OP was not entitled to anything.
My advice can be summed up as: check your contract OP, and see if your employer has adhered to it. If they haven't, they will be in breach of contract, and you will have remedies available to you. Please also note that company policies can also be deemed to be part of your contract even if they are not written into the document itself.
In your previous replies you misinterpreted what the OP meant by 'week in hand',
wrong again
albeit incorrect terminology but clear to anyone else what was meant so I suggest you go read what he said again and think about it and whilst you're at it maybe locate the shift key on your keyboard.
it doesn't matter if it was clear to anyone else, clarifying with the OP is what counts, and that's what i did, in case they didn't realise the final payment would be made a week after they left. some people still think if they leave on a friday they will be paid for that day, plus a week they think they never got paid for the first week they worked. rather than simply jumping in with assumptions, i prefer to seek clarity by asking questions and gaining information before giving a decision, although in situations such as online discussions i will give information relating to various options. what i don't do is read something and jump to a conclusion without knowing the full picture
Firstly, I did not say the employer needed to provide a letter. As you say, it would be helpful to know their formal position, which is why I asked. Although, if the contract states termination is subject to written notice, (which can include termination on immediate written notice), then the employer is contractually obliged to provide that written notice.
Secondly, wrongful termination is different to unfair dismissal, and is actionable no matter how long an employee has been employed. Unlike unfair dismissal, wrongful termination is not related to the reasons for dismissal. Wrongful termination would occur if the employer has not terminated the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of that contract. For example if the correct notice has not been given, or disciplinary procedures have not been followed, where those procedures form part of the contract.
As to your point about enhanced contractual notice prevailing over any statutory minimum. Of course it does - that was my point also, in answer to other posts that suggested the OP was not entitled to anything.
My advice can be summed up as: check your contract OP, and see if your employer has adhered to it. If they haven't, they will be in breach of contract, and you will have remedies available to you. Please also note that company policies can also be deemed to be part of your contract even if they are not written into the document itself.
BIB - i didn't say you did say that. i was adding further info to your post
on the subject of wrongful dismissal, there is nothing the OP has said that suggests this. the employer could simply make a payment in lieu of notice for example, as i'm mentioned before
as the OP hasn't returned it sounds like they've either resolved the issue (such as having a final payment on friday) or they aren't bothered anymore. if i had to guess i'd say employment was terminated last week and yesterday they received a final payment to square everything up, but the OP can always return to update us
it doesn't matter if it was clear to anyone else, clarifying with the OP is what counts, and that's what i did, in case they didn't realise the final payment would be made a week after they left. some people still think if they leave on a friday they will be paid for that day, plus a week they think they never got paid for the first week they worked. rather than simply jumping in with assumptions, i prefer to seek clarity by asking questions and gaining information before giving a decision, although in situations such as online discussions i will give information relating to various options. what i don't do is read something and jump to a conclusion without knowing the full picture
The OP had been paid for accrued holiday entitlement not taken, that is the mark of a final payment to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Nobody running a payroll system processing a leaver would do that and not also make payment in lieu of notice on the same payrun if it was intended to pay it at all.
The OP had been paid for accrued holiday entitlement not taken, that is the mark of a final payment to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Nobody running a payroll system processing a leaver would do that and not also make payment in lieu of notice on the same payrun if it was intended to pay it at all.
wrong again. that's not a fact for start and typically people in payroll process what they are told to pay. so they could have been asked to do one thing and not the other for example. anyone who has reasonably good real world experience of dealing with payroll would be able to tell you that. mistakes regularly happen in the world of payroll such as when managers don't report things correctly or employees make mistakes with timesheets. payroll could easily be told someone is a leaver but not told to make a payment in liue of notice for example, or told to make someone a leaver but not told that unused holiday entitlement was due or how much was due
You do on a health questionnaire though otherwise that would be lying.
You can only be sent a health questionnaire after a conditional offer - so then you are talking to occupational health NOT the employing person - a small company should outsource this I'd think. The managers would only hear a yes or no answer.
Usually that would mean you would only be refused the job offer if there was a issue meaning you couldn't do the job for some reason - and then you really wouldn't want the job ... would you ?.
I would just say I don't perceive myself as having an illness that would affect my job.
My absence record would speak for itself if they wanted to check.
But surely if you gave that response, which I would consider ambiguous, they'd be well within their rights to ask for details?
In the past, I've gone long periods of time without having any absence but I still have MS and I'm pretty certain that if I didn't declare it on a health questionnaire then I'd be out on my ear without any recourse.
You can only be sent a health questionnaire after a conditional offer - so then you are talking to occupational health NOT the employing person - a small company should outsource this I'd think. The managers would only hear a yes or no answer.
Usually that would mean you would only be refused the job offer if there was a issue meaning you couldn't do the job for some reason - and then you really wouldn't want the job ... would you ?.
But that wasn't the point. The poster I was responding to said you didn't have to declare an illness or disability - and I said you do on a health questionnaire. The context of when this would be sent out and who would look at it is irrelevant.
But that wasn't the point. The poster I was responding to said you didn't have to declare an illness or disability - and I said you do on a health questionnaire. The context of when this would be sent out and who would look at it is irrelevant.
That's correct.
You don't have to at the interview and they, the employer are not permitted to ask you.
This is to stop discrimination against disabled people.
You do on a health questionnaire though otherwise that would be lying.
There's no legal obligation to fill out a health questionnaire but if you refuse it can cause difficulties and it would be for the employer to decide what they do about the refusal.
Bit of a myth this "they can sack you within the first 2 years for whatever they like" lark.
The 2 year rule simply stops you from doing is pursuing an unfair dismissal claim if you are sacked within this period (used to be 1 year until the nasty party changed it). The amount of pennies you would get from a successful claim with 1-2 years employment is negligible anyway.
The real money is in a damages or discrimination claim (70k instead of 1-2k as a very rough guide) and if this is a 'stress' case your employer would have to be careful. However as you are within your probation period still I doubt you'd get very far so I would cut my losses on this one.
The OP had been paid for accrued holiday entitlement not taken, that is the mark of a final payment to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Nobody running a payroll system processing a leaver would do that and not also make payment in lieu of notice on the same payrun if it was intended to pay it at all.
Not all employers work like that mine pays holiday entitlement on last day of work, then weeks in hand come on the next pay run, some people end up waiting 6 weeks.
Not all employers work like that mine pays holiday entitlement on last day of work, then weeks in hand come on the next pay run, some people end up waiting 6 weeks.
The point here was that the OP used the term 'week in hand' when meaning 'week in lieu of notice', for which in my opinion there would be no reason to delay if it was intended to pay it.
Comments
the employer can pay in lieu of notice. the OP hasn't said this hasn't been paid or is due, so there is nothing to suggest any contractual obligations haven't been met based on what the OP says
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096
stat notice is a minimum of a week for over a month service up to 2 years service, so with over a months service they just need to pay a weeks pay in lieu unless the contract states otherwise (ie. more)
https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed
with a less than 2 years service, unless the reason for dimissal is due to illegal discrimination, which doesn't appear to be the case here, the OP can't make a succesful tribunal complaint in this case
they don't have to give one either. but if they did then the details should help, but as long as they pay hours worked plus pay in lieu of notice if none was given and unused holiday entitlement, then they don't seem to have done anything illegal. if it's a zero hours contract then no pay in lieu of notice may be required
In the course of your rush to impress everyone with your huge knowledge it would seem you've rather missed the whole point of the thread.
wrong again. have a read what he said, then think about it. then look back at my previous replies
Firstly, I did not say the employer needed to provide a letter. As you say, it would be helpful to know their formal position, which is why I asked. Although, if the contract states termination is subject to written notice, (which can include termination on immediate written notice), then the employer is contractually obliged to provide that written notice.
Secondly, wrongful termination is different to unfair dismissal, and is actionable no matter how long an employee has been employed. Unlike unfair dismissal, wrongful termination is not related to the reasons for dismissal. Wrongful termination would occur if the employer has not terminated the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of that contract. For example if the correct notice has not been given, or disciplinary procedures have not been followed, where those procedures form part of the contract.
As to your point about enhanced contractual notice prevailing over any statutory minimum. Of course it does - that was my point also, in answer to other posts that suggested the OP was not entitled to anything.
My advice can be summed up as: check your contract OP, and see if your employer has adhered to it. If they haven't, they will be in breach of contract, and you will have remedies available to you. Please also note that company policies can also be deemed to be part of your contract even if they are not written into the document itself.
wrong again
it doesn't matter if it was clear to anyone else, clarifying with the OP is what counts, and that's what i did, in case they didn't realise the final payment would be made a week after they left. some people still think if they leave on a friday they will be paid for that day, plus a week they think they never got paid for the first week they worked. rather than simply jumping in with assumptions, i prefer to seek clarity by asking questions and gaining information before giving a decision, although in situations such as online discussions i will give information relating to various options. what i don't do is read something and jump to a conclusion without knowing the full picture
BIB - i didn't say you did say that. i was adding further info to your post
on the subject of wrongful dismissal, there is nothing the OP has said that suggests this. the employer could simply make a payment in lieu of notice for example, as i'm mentioned before
as the OP hasn't returned it sounds like they've either resolved the issue (such as having a final payment on friday) or they aren't bothered anymore. if i had to guess i'd say employment was terminated last week and yesterday they received a final payment to square everything up, but the OP can always return to update us
wrong again. that's not a fact for start and typically people in payroll process what they are told to pay. so they could have been asked to do one thing and not the other for example. anyone who has reasonably good real world experience of dealing with payroll would be able to tell you that. mistakes regularly happen in the world of payroll such as when managers don't report things correctly or employees make mistakes with timesheets. payroll could easily be told someone is a leaver but not told to make a payment in liue of notice for example, or told to make someone a leaver but not told that unused holiday entitlement was due or how much was due
I'd have got rid of her after 2 weeks
Looking at the op's previous posts it appears they haven't had much luck in 2014 with employment.
Oh dear. I think we've been had 🙈😳
You don't have to declare an illness or a disability, infact it's covered by law.
You do on a health questionnaire though otherwise that would be lying.
I would just say I don't perceive myself as having an illness that would affect my job.
My absence record would speak for itself if they wanted to check.
You can only be sent a health questionnaire after a conditional offer - so then you are talking to occupational health NOT the employing person - a small company should outsource this I'd think. The managers would only hear a yes or no answer.
Usually that would mean you would only be refused the job offer if there was a issue meaning you couldn't do the job for some reason - and then you really wouldn't want the job ... would you ?.
But surely if you gave that response, which I would consider ambiguous, they'd be well within their rights to ask for details?
In the past, I've gone long periods of time without having any absence but I still have MS and I'm pretty certain that if I didn't declare it on a health questionnaire then I'd be out on my ear without any recourse.
But that wasn't the point. The poster I was responding to said you didn't have to declare an illness or disability - and I said you do on a health questionnaire. The context of when this would be sent out and who would look at it is irrelevant.
That's correct.
You don't have to at the interview and they, the employer are not permitted to ask you.
This is to stop discrimination against disabled people.
There's no legal obligation to fill out a health questionnaire but if you refuse it can cause difficulties and it would be for the employer to decide what they do about the refusal.
The 2 year rule simply stops you from doing is pursuing an unfair dismissal claim if you are sacked within this period (used to be 1 year until the nasty party changed it). The amount of pennies you would get from a successful claim with 1-2 years employment is negligible anyway.
The real money is in a damages or discrimination claim (70k instead of 1-2k as a very rough guide) and if this is a 'stress' case your employer would have to be careful. However as you are within your probation period still I doubt you'd get very far so I would cut my losses on this one.
Not all employers work like that mine pays holiday entitlement on last day of work, then weeks in hand come on the next pay run, some people end up waiting 6 weeks.