Can They Legally do this?

[Amy_27]

Hello,

After being off from a long-term illness my partner returned back to work at the beginning of October to his long-standing job. As we have been living off various benefits and such finding the travel money for him to get to work last month was a huge struggle, but we did manage it. Now in my partners contract it states that he will be paid the last working day of each month- making the date he should've been paid Friday 30th October. As we were relying on that money for him to get to work, tax the car, buy baby milk etc. etc. and he had checked with his boss previous to this date that his wages would be paid in on that date.

It came as an absolute blow when the wages weren't paid in as we had absolutely no money. So unfortunately we simply couldn't afford for him to go to work that Friday or on the Monday as we had exhausted all our options the previous month to get him to work, and had NO money. Now I would call this their mistake and not our fault that we were expecting this money to get my partner to work. Never mind anything else. (Fortunately the tax credits were paid in on the Tuesday and my partner returned to work on that day and the wages were in the bank that Thursday.)

However today my partner has attended a meeting with his manager and area manager and they basically have sabotaged my partner for not attending work and as a result has been issued a written warning as they have classed it as an unauthorised absence.

Surely this is not legal as had the money been there then my partner would've been at work no questions asked.How can my partner be punished for something that wasn't his fault?

Any information or guidance would be greatly appreciated

Thank you

[scotgal]

Did you phone and explain why your partner could not attend work?

[daffy654]

How far from the place of work do you live? Could he not have walked in or made arrangements to travel in with a workmate?

[dothawkes31]

if you have been on benefits you can have payments from the social fund during the first 28 days of your new employment, not for travel but for food and essentials, you should have been told this and you should have applied to your local social fund office

[daffy654]

It isn't new employment dot so I don't think the Social Fund would have paid out.He wasn't having to work a month in hand.

[dothawkes31]

oh right sorry, but he was still on benefits, not on a full sick pay.

[Amy_27]

Wowzers- quick response, thanks.

Firstly yes he did phone and say the reason as to why he would be unable to attend work on both days. And secondly unfortunately we live in Kendal and my partner works in Preston about 40 miles away and no-one else travels from Kendal they do travel from all over to get to his work but not Kendal.

[dothawkes31]

If he was returning to work from benefits and had to wait 28 days or more for his salary you could have claimed a crisis loan and said it was for food, gas, electric etc. I work in preston but live the other side and so couldn't give him a lift!

[scotgal]

Quite frankly Amy if your partner phoned his work and explained why he could not attend they cannot define this as an unexplained absence so they do not have a leg to stand on honey.

[albaqwerty]

this comment has nothing to do with your question,

you FORTUNATELY live in Kendal and unfortunately he works in Preston :)

be wary of them trying to make him quit his job.

[ABerrant]

Unfortunately scotgal, "unexplained" absence is not the issue. An absence can be explained and still be unauthorised. It is unauthorised absences which (legally) lead to disciplinary action.

[buildersmate]

Unfortunately you are not correct, scotgal.
Question-asker never referred to it as an unexplained absence, it's called an unauthorised absence - as in: one the company didn't agree to. It is correct legally that they can do this though one would expect a decent company to show some flexibility. I understand your frustration, but this has probably been done as a Warning to make the point that it is actually your partner's problem. I wouldn't expect this is go any further if it doesn't happen again - if it does he is into the 2nd Stage of the disciplinary process.

[scotgal]

I think a good lawyer would have this issue laughed out of court but I do accept that our laws are a wee bit different up here.

[factor-fiction]

The company will argue that it is the employee's responsibility to get to work. The fact that he lives 40 miles from work is not the emplyer's problem.
Of course the company should pay its employees on time, and he has a right to an explanation, an apology and payment of any resulting bank charges. But I think it's not reasonable not to turn up.

[R1Geezer]

Harsh but they are correct.
"How can my partner be punished for something that wasn't his fault", It's not a question of fault it's a question of responsibility however harsh it seems it is the employees responsibility to get to work, any way he can, or at least get the absence authorised, did he have any holiday allocation he could have used?. The absence was unauthorised and as such they are within their rights. However if he proves a good reliable employee from now on, this incident will soon be forgotten and he should be able to progress.

[Amy_27]

Hmm I agree with you albaqwerty I think there is a bit of this going on unfortunately!

RIGeezer- I agree that he had a responsibility to turn in for work but surely they also had the same responsibility to pay him for the work he had already done on time as agreed and expected and had he been paid then he would have attended work as normal. In the meeting yesterday his manager was stressing the fact that he had gotten off lightly for his absence and kept on repeating how they actually had the right to instantly dismiss him and how this was considered yet he should be grateful as he still has his job?

EDDIE51- No he's not in a trade union but as he's been at work today I've been looking into this and trying to contact the citizens advice bureau as I really think that this sounds just unfair.

Thanks for all your answers

[Amy_27]

RIGeezer- sorry just re-read your answer I will ask him about the holiday thing as surely this is a better compromise for both him and his employers.

[R1Geezer]

Yes they should have paid on time but 2 wrongs don't make a right and like it or not the employer is perhaps taking advantage of the situation because they know he needs a job. The Holiday thing could sort this restrospectively.

[socket2008]

This takes me back to the storm of 1987 and dealing with a dozen or more people who took an unauthorized absence because 'they physically couldn't get in'. Most were legite, though one person lived opposite the company!

In your case, It's unfair, but an employer will argue why your hubby didn't make an attempt to get to work through borrowing money from a friend, family member, contacting the DWP etc. Did he say in his meeting that he made various attempts to get the monies to get there?

There is no set time for BACS payments to be credited on a day (usually midnight to 2pm) . It is logical that even if the 30th had been pay day, that the monies wouldn't have been in by start of work.

Speaking as a former senior union member of the CPSA and taking everything into account, I would leave it and tell your husband to put it down to (an unfortunate) experience. Rocking the boat anymore in the current climate would be a big risk. They would know that you would not have the financial clout to represent yourself in a meaningful way. Treat his return to work as a new start and try to move on.