ChatterBank5 mins ago
help with problem at work
8 Answers
she works 25 hours per week employed as a gym instructor £6.50 ph and the rest self employed as a PT and fitness coach teaching aqua aerobics, excercise classes etc Circa £20 - £25 ph - all at the same centre. there are three supervisors A,B,C, A runs the gym - B the sessions and the C is admin. - Ok here is the problem:-
she has organised her first course outside of this centre Thurs eves and asked not to be rota'd on, on These evenings
A will not allow her to run these because they "interfere" with her normal working hours at the gym" - copy part of the e-mail A sent her here.
..Whilst working for the Company to devote all of your time and attention to your duties. You must not engage in any other business, activity or employment (either inside or outside your normal working hours) which interferes with this duty..
she works 25 hrs "at any time the gym is open on a 7 day cycle" she is given her rota the weekend before the new week so she has no advance notice of when she is working
B has been asked by A not to give her any more coaching sessions as they interfere with her gym work
she has complained to C and asked for action such a meeting with a manager or sim C made a promise but nothing has been done for the past three days
The new "outside" course starts next Thurs
she has been told by A to choose either her job or her sessions
she loves her job and feels that if she can overcome this glitch she can make it all work - her idea before this was to do more on the self employed side and reduce the gym to 10 hours ( which some instructors work )
I told her to write down (dates times who said what etc) because she will need evidence if she is constructively dismissed - just as an after thought she won employee of the quarter in December and she also won (Centres names) got talent in November so she is well thought of.
Please HELP
she has organised her first course outside of this centre Thurs eves and asked not to be rota'd on, on These evenings
A will not allow her to run these because they "interfere" with her normal working hours at the gym" - copy part of the e-mail A sent her here.
..Whilst working for the Company to devote all of your time and attention to your duties. You must not engage in any other business, activity or employment (either inside or outside your normal working hours) which interferes with this duty..
she works 25 hrs "at any time the gym is open on a 7 day cycle" she is given her rota the weekend before the new week so she has no advance notice of when she is working
B has been asked by A not to give her any more coaching sessions as they interfere with her gym work
she has complained to C and asked for action such a meeting with a manager or sim C made a promise but nothing has been done for the past three days
The new "outside" course starts next Thurs
she has been told by A to choose either her job or her sessions
she loves her job and feels that if she can overcome this glitch she can make it all work - her idea before this was to do more on the self employed side and reduce the gym to 10 hours ( which some instructors work )
I told her to write down (dates times who said what etc) because she will need evidence if she is constructively dismissed - just as an after thought she won employee of the quarter in December and she also won (Centres names) got talent in November so she is well thought of.
Please HELP
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lyndylou. 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.
-- answer removed --
It's not too easy to follow this and if I undertsnad it correctly I don't think much, if any,of the stuff about what A sid to B and B said to C is important in the context of your query.
On first reading it seems to me the employer A is not being unreasonable. As I understand it, 'she' (the gym instructor- the subject of your question) is contracted to work on a shift system but wants to opt out of certain hours in order to give her time to do her freelance work. I can see how difficult it is for the employer to organise shifts if employees want to pick and choose.
Ideally attempts should be made to resolve by consultation. If that doesn't work your friend needs to choose between the employed role or the self employed role.
Let me knowif I have misunderstood anything.
On first reading it seems to me the employer A is not being unreasonable. As I understand it, 'she' (the gym instructor- the subject of your question) is contracted to work on a shift system but wants to opt out of certain hours in order to give her time to do her freelance work. I can see how difficult it is for the employer to organise shifts if employees want to pick and choose.
Ideally attempts should be made to resolve by consultation. If that doesn't work your friend needs to choose between the employed role or the self employed role.
Let me knowif I have misunderstood anything.
It is common for an employer to have an issue with an employee running a self-employed business that provides an identical service as that provided by the employer. The reason is pretty obvious - the employee may seek to tout for business from the punters whilst undertaking the employer's work. I suspect this is at the heart of A's problem.
Forgetting the self-employed element for one second, what is written down (either in any engagement letter or in any Company Handbook) regarding the maximum scope of the hours from which rostered hours may be demanded by the employer. (i.e. can the employer demand any combination of rostered hours between M-Sun, 10-20 say, provided at least two rest days- to total 25 hours?). If nothing is written down, what has been the recent (last year's) practice - that could be construed as being an 'implied condition of employment'?
Forgetting the self-employed element for one second, what is written down (either in any engagement letter or in any Company Handbook) regarding the maximum scope of the hours from which rostered hours may be demanded by the employer. (i.e. can the employer demand any combination of rostered hours between M-Sun, 10-20 say, provided at least two rest days- to total 25 hours?). If nothing is written down, what has been the recent (last year's) practice - that could be construed as being an 'implied condition of employment'?
Next, has there been anything written down before about the employee not being able to undertake other COACHING ACTIVITIES as an extra to the employment? I do not believe an employer can demand that "it is not acceptable to engage in any other business, activity or employment (either inside or outside your normal working hours) which interferes with this duty" - particularly as this is a 25 hours contract - it is an unreasonable constraint on the employee. But I suggest she keeps her powder dry at present by not challenging it until she has more evidence for the employer seems determined to do, to tie her planning into knots. What the employer can demand is that she does not undertake self-employment at the same centre-and I am unclear whether that has happened..
Finally regarding the potential for unfair dismissal, some basics:
Has she been there at least 12 months continuously?
Do you realise that constructive dismissal means that the employee has to resign first, then claim (and prove) constructive dismissal at an ET? The risk is on the employee.
Finally regarding the potential for unfair dismissal, some basics:
Has she been there at least 12 months continuously?
Do you realise that constructive dismissal means that the employee has to resign first, then claim (and prove) constructive dismissal at an ET? The risk is on the employee.
wow - factor 30 and buildersmate thanks you really got your teeth into this one - ok firstly there is no issue with the self employed bit she runs her PT sessions at the same gym and the employer (not A) has sent her on courses for various things so that she can indeed run them at their gym and get paid on a self employed basis. The problem is with A and the contracted 25 hours the rota is any time 7 days a week ( B has to make arrangements with A to enable the employee to run regular classes - ie every wed 6-7 ) then the employee would be deemed not available at that time when the rota is made up - A works in this way too ( ie A does both shifts and sessions ) BUT A has told B not to allow her sessions ( because its "easier" for A to do the rota ) She has no set hours or set days and A will not give a rota in advance ( Sun for the next week days) Buildersmate I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that it is an unreasonable constraint on the employee because the employer has told her she if free to set up session out side the gym so long as it does not interfere with the duty but she never knows when the duty is.So, when she went ahead and arranged something A tried to tell her it was against company policy which quite frankly is a step to far ( she obviously has a life but she doesn't know when that is ) A in my opinion is wrong about the policy it simply means she should not seek work inside or outside the company if it interferes with her duty ( which is when? ) anyway yes I do understand constructive dismissal is where she has to quit first - A has told her in a heated exchange she has to CHOOSE well no contest £6.50 ph working for A or lots of £20 ph working for herself ? but she loves the work and she knows it can lead somewhere I would appriciate help with the law side of things just in case she quits X
I have just been making dinner and this hit me - A,B and C are all doing a disservice to the company. The Company value their staff - paying for training - putting on competitions and company incentives like employee of the quarter etc this is why she loves her job. The company pays for her to go on training. then A finds the rota too difficult to do so ropes B in to the scam by not using her skills when she complains to C - C does nothing I don't think the management know - Who by the way are the people who value her most, dishing out several awards to her in the last few months. This is a clear case of jealousy on A's part confirmed by the fact that A told her not to go to the management about this as a protection to her. A said the management want to discipline her for breaking company policy???????
1 to 8 of 8
