Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Workplace rights
4 Answers
At the firm where my friiend's husband works, the mens toilets are undergoing refurbishment. Whilst this takes place, a portacabin will be installed to supply the loos and washing facilities.
The manager has told the workers that if there is any damage, money will be deducted from all male employees wages to cover this.
Have they any right to do this, as surely the portacabin and its contents will be insured - but if so, will the firm who's hiring it have to pay insurance against this happening, or the portacabin people themselves?
Thanks.
The manager has told the workers that if there is any damage, money will be deducted from all male employees wages to cover this.
Have they any right to do this, as surely the portacabin and its contents will be insured - but if so, will the firm who's hiring it have to pay insurance against this happening, or the portacabin people themselves?
Thanks.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ice.Maiden. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hiya Icey!
1. 'Collective punishments' are unlawful under European human rights legislation.
2. An employer can't deduct damages from an employee's pay unless there is a relevant provision in the employee's contract (or the employee has signed a written agreement). An employee can't arbitrarily amend an employee's contract to include such a provision:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/Pay/DG_175878
3. It's probably a standard condition, in any portacabin hire agreement, that the hirer will be held responsible for the costs of any damage occurring to the portacabin. (If the hire company has any insurance to cover such damage it probably only applies if the hirer goes bust before paying for the damage).
4. There's no legal obligation upon the employer to have any insurance relating to such damage. Where such insurance cover does exist ,any claim would probably be subject to the deduction of an excess, together with increased premiums in the future.
Chris
1. 'Collective punishments' are unlawful under European human rights legislation.
2. An employer can't deduct damages from an employee's pay unless there is a relevant provision in the employee's contract (or the employee has signed a written agreement). An employee can't arbitrarily amend an employee's contract to include such a provision:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/Pay/DG_175878
3. It's probably a standard condition, in any portacabin hire agreement, that the hirer will be held responsible for the costs of any damage occurring to the portacabin. (If the hire company has any insurance to cover such damage it probably only applies if the hirer goes bust before paying for the damage).
4. There's no legal obligation upon the employer to have any insurance relating to such damage. Where such insurance cover does exist ,any claim would probably be subject to the deduction of an excess, together with increased premiums in the future.
Chris
Hi Chris.
Thanks very much for your answer. I was hoping you'd be around to help with this one!
I think there's enough info there for my friend's husband to work with if it becomes necessary.
It seems that there was no written indication of the portacabin/s being installed either, so I doubt if the company'll bother to put their suggested "damage deductions" in writing to the staff, and what you've replied with is useful if they need to seek further help. Cheers.
Thanks very much for your answer. I was hoping you'd be around to help with this one!
I think there's enough info there for my friend's husband to work with if it becomes necessary.
It seems that there was no written indication of the portacabin/s being installed either, so I doubt if the company'll bother to put their suggested "damage deductions" in writing to the staff, and what you've replied with is useful if they need to seek further help. Cheers.
Chris's analysis is on the ball as usual. Looking at it from an employee relations point of view, this is pretty crass, and I suspect it is a manager doing a bit of arse-protecting by threatening dire consequences, (because his boss has said something to him!) which, as Chris says, he would not be able to deliver. At the same time, I can understand the manager's concerns, under the current financial situation, if somebody was anti-social enough to wreck the facility. (There is always somebody......!)
However, one would hope that the employees concerned would want to ensure that the facilities remain undamaged for their own "convenience"! It may be best if they agree amongst themselves that they will do their best to ensure it, by a bit of peer pressure.
They then probably need to tell the manager that they really feel he is acting over the top with his comments and ask to speak to his/her boss to clarify the situation, and that they have discussed it amongst themselves, to be ensuring the nobody damages the facilities, in their own interests. I wouldn't get legalistic at this stage, and see what reaction they get from up the line. I think if the manager is acting over the top the last thing he/she will wnat is the overall boss getting involved, if he/she has stuck their neck out,
If both bosses think this is OK to do this, then wield the legal card.
However, an old boss of mine always used to say, that in these situations, it is important to make sure that the other side can walk away with their dignity intact for the sake of future relations, if those relations currently are not broke!!
However, one would hope that the employees concerned would want to ensure that the facilities remain undamaged for their own "convenience"! It may be best if they agree amongst themselves that they will do their best to ensure it, by a bit of peer pressure.
They then probably need to tell the manager that they really feel he is acting over the top with his comments and ask to speak to his/her boss to clarify the situation, and that they have discussed it amongst themselves, to be ensuring the nobody damages the facilities, in their own interests. I wouldn't get legalistic at this stage, and see what reaction they get from up the line. I think if the manager is acting over the top the last thing he/she will wnat is the overall boss getting involved, if he/she has stuck their neck out,
If both bosses think this is OK to do this, then wield the legal card.
However, an old boss of mine always used to say, that in these situations, it is important to make sure that the other side can walk away with their dignity intact for the sake of future relations, if those relations currently are not broke!!
Thanks for your reply Androcles. I'll show both of these answers to my friend. You've made some good points - and although I didn't comment about it at the time, I also suspected that the manager was doing a bit of creeping to someone higher up, and wants to protect his own skin for if anything goes wrong - especially as the job of putting something in writing in the works contracts should probably've come from his level - but hasn't. I don't know, but thanks to you both anyway.
1 to 4 of 4
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
ChatterBank109 mins ago
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |