millitant wrote:the act of working your entitlement in its self is not unlawful
claiming payments you are not entitled to is
the fact that when you receive your wages you make a declaration that their is no overpayment and that you are entitled to it
the point i am making is how can you do say 80 hours in a week and not contravene the working time directive for a start if you have not opted out
and has that gone over 48 hours in a 17 week period
may i ask how long you have been employed by royal mail a/flyer
what payment are you not enititled to? in this scenario and why?
what difference does it make how long i have worked for royal mail? as its a question about employment law that you obviously arent that clued up on, so length of service of royal mail doesnt matter
millitant wrote:the act of working your entitlement in its self is not unlawful
claiming payments you are not entitled to is
the fact that when you receive your wages you make a declaration that their is no overpayment and that you are entitled to it
the point i am making is how can you do say 80 hours in a week and not contravene the working time directive for a start if you have not opted out
and has that gone over 48 hours in a 17 week period
may i ask how long you have been employed by royal mail a/flyer
It can actually be unlawful.
Employers are not allowed to "buy back" statutory annual leave which i would suggest is exactly what they are doing,however since it's a voluntary arrangement who exactly is going to take it to an Employment Tribunal?...not the employee or the employer so it really is a pointless argument.
The only important fact is it's in breach of our collective agreement so the rep should be flagging it up to branch and HQ...end of story.
I heard that Dunfermline DO were carrying forward 2500 days of annual leave,and when the union asked how they were going to resolve the problem,the manager came up with a thirteen year plan that would keep him within his budget!!
See above ? Lost me on that one ? Which above ?