Employment law advice

lost_in_thought

Waddlie wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Waddlie, because I'm curious, what were the 'genuinely exceptional circumstances'?

I completely agree with your point of view by the way. I've been lucky enough to always work for companies where I can work from home in situations such as these.

The member of staff suffers from a medical condition which renders them largely immobile most of them time, and even more immobile when they are cold. I couldn't have expected them to walk in if they lived half a mile away, never mind the actual five miles they would have needed to walk.

Also agree with RolfF. When I lived in London I put up with all the trials and tribulations of living fairly centrally. The constant commuting-related-whining, lateness and expectations of special treatment from the girl who insisted on commuting in from Brighton did my head in.

Fair enough, I was curious!

I totally agree - I lived a 2-hour each way commute from one office, and very much felt that it wasn't their problem that I lived so far away.

However, playing devil's advocate a bit here, it's also not your problem that one of your employees has a medical problem, presumably there is a minicab service they could have used?

waddlie

lost_in_thought wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Waddlie, because I'm curious, what were the 'genuinely exceptional circumstances'?

I completely agree with your point of view by the way. I've been lucky enough to always work for companies where I can work from home in situations such as these.

The member of staff suffers from a medical condition which renders them largely immobile most of them time, and even more immobile when they are cold. I couldn't have expected them to walk in if they lived half a mile away, never mind the actual five miles they would have needed to walk.

Also agree with RolfF. When I lived in London I put up with all the trials and tribulations of living fairly centrally. The constant commuting-related-whining, lateness and expectations of special treatment from the girl who insisted on commuting in from Brighton did my head in.

Fair enough, I was curious!

I totally agree - I lived a 2-hour each way commute from one office, and very much felt that it wasn't their problem that I lived so far away.

However, playing devil's advocate a bit here, it's also not your problem that one of your employees has a medical problem, presumably there is a minicab service they could have used?

If one of my staff has a medical condition which affects their attendance or fitness to work, then it is very much my problem! It was unlikely that any car would get up his street to pick him up. He could barely walk and had made the effort to email me photos of his street so I could see how bad it was. I had enough on my plate with the half a dozen who really were taking the piss and I had to consider at what point my expectations would be unreasonable.

cjw

acidstrato wrote:

redvee wrote:

Our comapny looked into this yesterday and the words that fluttered to to the workers were that

If an employee makes it and and is sent home then they get paid as normal
If they phone in and say I'm gonna surf the BR forums then they will lose a days holiday.

by 'looked into' do you mean into uk law? or company policy?

I bared the weather today, got up at usual time and drove in, only to be sent home within an hour and a half (over the phone). I was told I wont be paid a full days wage. I had no choice in the matter. So I dont see why I should be made short. Unfortunately we have no union at work so we are on our own but so far I cant find any solid information

The BBC link on page 1 of this thread covers this;

Employees have statutory protection against an unauthorised deduction being made from their wages, so if the employer has no contractual right to deduct pay and if the employee does not consent, deducting pay would be potentially subject to legal challenge.

So they can#t dock your pay without your permission. Personnaly I would say as you were making your way in and they sent you home, you are entitled to full pay and NOT loose leave or TOIL etc as it was the employer who decided to shut. Not you as you were fulfilling your contractual obligations. I personally wouldn't accept what they are trying to do to you.

waddlie

cjw wrote:

acidstrato wrote:

redvee wrote:

Our comapny looked into this yesterday and the words that fluttered to to the workers were that

If an employee makes it and and is sent home then they get paid as normal
If they phone in and say I'm gonna surf the BR forums then they will lose a days holiday.

by 'looked into' do you mean into uk law? or company policy?

I bared the weather today, got up at usual time and drove in, only to be sent home within an hour and a half (over the phone). I was told I wont be paid a full days wage. I had no choice in the matter. So I dont see why I should be made short. Unfortunately we have no union at work so we are on our own but so far I cant find any solid information

The BBC link on page 1 of this thread covers this;

Employees have statutory protection against an unauthorised deduction being made from their wages, so if the employer has no contractual right to deduct pay and if the employee does not consent, deducting pay would be potentially subject to legal challenge.

So they can#t dock your pay without your permission. Personnaly I would say as you were making your way in and they sent you home, you are entitled to full pay and NOT loose leave or TOIL etc as it was the employer who decided to shut. Not you as you were fulfilling your contractual obligations. I personally wouldn't accept what they are trying to do to you.

...but neither option mentioned by redvee involved an employee having their pay docked...

cjw

Waddlie wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Waddlie, because I'm curious, what were the 'genuinely exceptional circumstances'?

I completely agree with your point of view by the way. I've been lucky enough to always work for companies where I can work from home in situations such as these.

The member of staff suffers from a medical condition which renders them largely immobile most of them time, and even more immobile when they are cold. I couldn't have expected them to walk in if they lived half a mile away, never mind the actual five miles they would have needed to walk.

Also agree with RolfF. When I lived in London I put up with all the trials and tribulations of living fairly centrally. The constant commuting-related-whining, lateness and expectations of special treatment from the girl who insisted on commuting in from Brighton did my head in.

Fair enough, I was curious!

I totally agree - I lived a 2-hour each way commute from one office, and very much felt that it wasn't their problem that I lived so far away.

However, playing devil's advocate a bit here, it's also not your problem that one of your employees has a medical problem, presumably there is a minicab service they could have used?

If one of my staff has a medical condition which affects their attendance or fitness to work, then it is very much my problem! It was unlikely that any car would get up his street to pick him up. He could barely walk and had made the effort to email me photos of his street so I could see how bad it was. I had enough on my plate with the half a dozen who really were taking the wee-wee and I had to consider at what point my expectations would be unreasonable.

That's all fine until one of the staff whom you have made take leave complains about differential and unfair treatment. saying that no car would pick him up is no different to expecting the member of staff to drive in - and as they couldn't they had to take leave. I think you could be on dodgy ground if staff gett upset here.

cjw

He said;

I was told I wont be paid a full days wage.

What is that if not docking pay?

And either way... he tried to get in and employer sent him home.

cjw

@Waddlie,

Sorry just reread your post and realise that is exactly what happened. I just skimmed it and thought that is what you were doing today - anticipating trouble :oops:

You ask what I would do. ... treat them all the same.

You also need to remember that the other staff probably think the poorly chap is swinging the lead a lot of the time in any case and not pulling his weight. So extra 'benefits' would be doubly hurtful to them.

waddlie

cjw wrote:

He said;

I was told I wont be paid a full days wage.

What is that if not docking pay?

And either way... he tried to get in and employer sent him home.

Apologies, I got my posts and posters mixed up.

Regarding your preceding comment, treating people fairly is not the same as treating all people the same. It's something very few people seem to get their heads around.

Would it have been reasonable to dock his leave? No. Would it be fair on those who had struggled in to give those who had clearly not even bothered to get out of bed a free day off? No.

As a member of staff I would like to be managed in accordance with my individual circumstances rather than lumped in with the herd. As a manager I like to manage my staff in accordance with their individual circumstances too.

What would you have done?

waddlie

Oops, we're talking past each other.

I should also point out that I have responsibilities under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments for those suffering from a disability, and not to discriminate against those who are disabled. If I am considered to have discriminated against someone in this respect I am in a whole world of trouble...

cjw

But your remaining staff didn't see it as fair - and neither would I.

Given that you had required any staff who didn't make it in to take leave (or TOIL etc), I would have done the same to this chap.

Absolutely agree with managing people as individuals, but I don't see in this circumstance how this is any different to the others who didn't get in. Clearly I don't know the background however and there may be a lot more to it. But on face of it, he took a picy emailed it, didn't try to get transport (although that is not you problem remember). It is up to him if he lives too far away from work etc etc....

waddlie

If you developed arthritis, would you move closer to your place of work so you could still get in to work when it snowed? I doubt it. And as per my previous post, if getting in involved walking, in his case it legitimately was not going to happen.

Many of the others who didn't get in were thoroughly taking the piss. They were fit, able and lived closer to the office than me but couldn't be arsed to trudge through the snow for a half an hour.

cjw

Waddlie wrote:

Oops, we're talking past each other.

I should also point out that I have responsibilities under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments for those suffering from a disability, and not to discriminate against those who are disabled. If I am considered to have discriminated against someone in this respect I am in a whole world of trouble...

Again talking past each other. Didn't realise he's disabled. However my understanding of the act is that is about reasonable adjustments at the work place - again you have no responsibility of getting a disabled person to or from the place of work.

cjw

Waddlie wrote:

If you developed arthritis, would you move closer to your place of work so you could still get in to work when it snowed? I doubt it. And as per my previous post, if getting in involved walking, in his case it legitimately was not going to happen..

Hate to have to restate it, but the stance you took said it wasn't your problem that people couldn't get to work - APART from this chap.

You start saying about walking - but how far away did the other staff live who lost pay? 20 miles? would you expect them to walk? But they lost leave.

waddlie

cjw wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Oops, we're talking past each other.

I should also point out that I have responsibilities under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments for those suffering from a disability, and not to discriminate against those who are disabled. If I am considered to have discriminated against someone in this respect I am in a whole world of trouble...

Again talking past each other. Didn't realise he's disabled. However my understanding of the act is that is about reasonable adjustments at the work place - again you have no responsibility of getting a disabled person to or from the place of work.

You're right, I don't - but I am not going to risk being accused of discriminating against him by expecting the same of him compared with an able-bodied member of staff. If you've ever seen an employment tribunal in action, you will know the most innocent and well-meaning behaviour can be spun against you.

cjw

Waddlie wrote:

If you've ever seen an employment tribunal in action, you will know the most innocent and well-meaning behaviour can be spun against you.

I have been the manager in one. Not fun, but the equitable treatment and following policies applied to all is what wins in the end - oh and documenting that the lazy bastards had been given warnings and offered retraining blah blah blah.

cjw

Now me....

I'm working at home tomorrow - to bloody snowy out there

waddlie

CJW - I'm not taking this personally and I hope you're not too. As a middle manager I get shit from above and shit from below. A large part of my job is protecting my arse and I'm used to being questioned.

It is my problem if people can't get to work. It's more my problem than it is theirs, in many ways, as I am responsible for my team's productivity. However I don't have sympathy for those who choose to commute long distances and expect me to turn a blind eye when they are late or can't get to work. Where they live is their choice and they are responsible for the consequences.

In this one case, the distance really made no odds. He lived at the top of a hill which no car was likely to get up safely. Unlike his colleagues, walking was simply no option, solely on account of his medical condition.

I didn't make an assessment based on distance - staff were docked leave (NOT pay) regardless of whether it was 2 miles or 20 as I was not stupid enough to say that x was a reasonable distance to walk but y was not.

cjw

No not personal

And understand what you're saying. It just seems that the outcome of the way you treated this chap did actually lead to resentment from other staff - especially the wasters who you are likely to end up in a tribunal. Which is what I would have expected. You then have to manage that as well.

I would have spoken to the chap and explained the situation that I am not responsible for him getting to work exactly the same as all the staff. As my policy decision is that all staff should attend the work place - or take leave, this means all staff.

I imagine distance working was not an option?

Where I have had staff with broken legs before I have had work sent to their home to save them coming in. OK not pratical in the snow

Think we'll leave it there now as I just keep restating the same point and adding nothing new

kingrollo

I work for the NHS - and all staff were told to make 'serious attempt' to get to work - or they would be docked a days leave.

A more reasonable approach, from a better employer was that in adverse weather - everyone was given a few hours credit - those that didn't come in, could use this to partially make up the defict.

Its a bit confusing when local advice is not to make journeys unless its vital - but your employer says you must make a serious attempt to get to work.

bails87

I also work for the NHS and was told

Please do not take unnecessary risks in the snow. Non-urgent meetings should be cancelled or, if possible, conducted by teleconference. Those who are able to work remotely should do so, unless they can reliably get to work.

So no real pressure to struggle in, and I preempted it by taking my laptop home the day before, so was able to do a full days work at home.

Though obviously working from home isn't an option for many.

acidstrato

thanks for the info, good ammunition for me