Save The Children .Occupations. C/D 31St...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
break time food
9 Answers
can my boss start deducting money from my wages I have work for him for 9 years and have always had my food included .
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by starbar1969. 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.
I might be wrong but I'm guessing if nothing is written down and signed then he doesn't neccesarily have to provide you with food and you don't have to pay. What about asking him if you can just bring your own food in and not have money deducted. I'm guessing again but I think he may have to get you to sign something to say you agree before he starts deducting money
It's a pity that people with no knowledge even bother to answer this sort of question..
Start by looking here, the bit about 'implied terms'.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_1003710 9
Having read it - especially the bit about custom & practice in relationship to implied terms, then go back to your boss and explain that you consider that after 9 years, you consider that inclusion of food is an implied term of your contract of employment.
See what happens next. Either he will back down or he won't - it might. If he doesn't, you have no choice other than roll over and accept it or threaten to resign and claim constructive dismissal at an Employment Tribunal - which given the present economic environment is probably a bridge too far. You are almost certainly in the right, however it doesn't prevent an employer seeking to change your T&Cs.
Start by looking here, the bit about 'implied terms'.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_1003710 9
Having read it - especially the bit about custom & practice in relationship to implied terms, then go back to your boss and explain that you consider that after 9 years, you consider that inclusion of food is an implied term of your contract of employment.
See what happens next. Either he will back down or he won't - it might. If he doesn't, you have no choice other than roll over and accept it or threaten to resign and claim constructive dismissal at an Employment Tribunal - which given the present economic environment is probably a bridge too far. You are almost certainly in the right, however it doesn't prevent an employer seeking to change your T&Cs.
(2-part post)
Firstly, you have got a contract. Even if nothing is put in writing, a legal contract of employment exists between every employer and their employees. Additionally, your employer should have provided you with a 'written statement of employment particulars' within two months of you starting work. That's a legal requirement:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_1002790 5
Secondly, I find myself positioned mid-way between Buildersmate and CAJ1 in my response. Buildersmate correctly indicates the possibility that 'custom and practice' can lead to 'implied terms' of a contract. CAJ1, on the other hand, has probably indicated the reality of the situation. That view isn't based solely upon theory. It's derived largely from experience, as I'll explain:
Firstly, you have got a contract. Even if nothing is put in writing, a legal contract of employment exists between every employer and their employees. Additionally, your employer should have provided you with a 'written statement of employment particulars' within two months of you starting work. That's a legal requirement:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employe es/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_1002790 5
Secondly, I find myself positioned mid-way between Buildersmate and CAJ1 in my response. Buildersmate correctly indicates the possibility that 'custom and practice' can lead to 'implied terms' of a contract. CAJ1, on the other hand, has probably indicated the reality of the situation. That view isn't based solely upon theory. It's derived largely from experience, as I'll explain:
When I was teaching, all staff received free school meals. This was theoretically on the basis that, because we ate with our pupils, we were 'supervising' and therefore 'on duty'. The free meals were later withdrawn (even though we still ate with the pupils) and the legal departments of several unions (NUT, NAS/UWT, PAT and AMMA) were called upon to see if this contravened our contractual rights based upon 'custom and practice'. All four sets of lawyers agreed that we had no case and that our employer was entitled to withdraw the free meals.
More recently, I've worked for a rail company where every employee was provided with two free travel passes. One was for their own use and one was for any other person nominated by the employee. The franchise was transferred to another company with employees (theoretically) retaining all of their contractual rights. The new company changed the rules so that the 'extra' pass could only be given to a spouse or civil partner. This upset those who were then unable to give their passes to their boyfriends, girlfriends or just to a mate. Once again, the legal departments of several unions (RMT, TSSA and ASLEF) were called upon to examine whether 'custom and practice' was relevant. They all ruled that there was no legal challenge available to the company's decision.
Chris
More recently, I've worked for a rail company where every employee was provided with two free travel passes. One was for their own use and one was for any other person nominated by the employee. The franchise was transferred to another company with employees (theoretically) retaining all of their contractual rights. The new company changed the rules so that the 'extra' pass could only be given to a spouse or civil partner. This upset those who were then unable to give their passes to their boyfriends, girlfriends or just to a mate. Once again, the legal departments of several unions (RMT, TSSA and ASLEF) were called upon to examine whether 'custom and practice' was relevant. They all ruled that there was no legal challenge available to the company's decision.
Chris
Which is why I worded the answer as I did, Chris.
In most of these low-key sorts of cases (small employer, few employees), employers and employees don't have access to nor wish to engage in 'legal action' - it is too expensive and OTT. However this results in employees get stuffed by bullying employers who have no idea about employment law but assert what they think is their right what they want to do anyway.
The best way is to assert one's alleged 'rights' and try and outdo the boss from a position of legal knowledge?
In most of these low-key sorts of cases (small employer, few employees), employers and employees don't have access to nor wish to engage in 'legal action' - it is too expensive and OTT. However this results in employees get stuffed by bullying employers who have no idea about employment law but assert what they think is their right what they want to do anyway.
The best way is to assert one's alleged 'rights' and try and outdo the boss from a position of legal knowledge?
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
