wages trouble

[kaikai]

I have been very ill of recent and unfortunatley this has led to me being unable to work at the moment. When I started my time off I was told over the phone and also by e mail that the director of the company had authorised for me to get 2 months full pay, then it would go to SSP. This was a great favour as in my contract it states, if I am off sick I will get 1 month full pay then it would go on to SSP.

I am due to go back next month. At this time I will have been off sick, in total for 2 months and two weeks so I was expecting to only get 2 weeks SSP which I could manage. However, I recieved a phone call from payroll this morning and they said that the director had got it wrong and I was only entitled to 1 month sick pay and I will be getting 6 weeks SSP!!

I still have the confirmation e mail stating I would get 2 months full pay, which I have forwarded onto payroll as in my contract it states, any documents sent via e mail are as legally binding as on paper.

Where does this stand in regards to the law? Even though I still have the e mail and have been told over the phone that I would get 1 extra month full pay, does this mean nothing? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks x

[bednobs]

as the employers scheme is over and above the minimum for all workers, i would have thought they had the right to vary it as and when they wanted, as long as they are treating all employees equally
If they give you two months, they are setting a precedent that would actually change the whole scheme as they couldn't treat you more favourably that the next person to unfortunately be off sick.
In my mind this just means that the person who told you made a mistake,a nd now they are rectifying it by putting it back to normal

[pink-kittens]

Read here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefit s/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjur ed/DG_10018786

Quote 'your employer has a sick pay scheme, which is equal to, or more than SSP, they do not have to operate the SSP scheme'

I am reading it as if your employer has already paid you the equivalent amount in wages as you would be getting in SSP, then they actually do not have to operate a sick pay scheme/ or pay SSP. Full details on the link

[kaikai]

Thanks folks!!

Really appreciate the advice. Still don't know if they really are required by law to pay me the full two months or not, however I have pushed for them to follow through on what they promised and this has paid off. I am getting the full lot. I think the director just made a mistake, like you said bednobs but I think with the position he has got he can't really afford to be making mistakes like that!

Thanks again! x

[buildersmate]

Unusually I do not agree with bednobs on this one.
It certainly doesn't set any precedent and it is perfectly OK for an employer to decide to vary the contractual terms for an employee. Just think of it as a 'pay bonus' - its all money afterall.
I consider that because you have an email making an offer to you, that is reasonable grounds to pursuing it.
However I wouldn't get on a legal high-horse about it. Something along the line of 'look, you made me a kind offer and I've planned my finances accordingly. Why have you changed your mind'.

[factor-fiction]

It sounds like human error to me. I'm not sur eyou can treat this as a legal contact with offer, acceptance, etc.
Did the reference to getting 2 months actually affect anything/change your actions? Are you saying you would have gone back to work earlier if you'd known that you'd only have got full pay for one month?