Is there anything in UK law that affects how leave can be given to staff with different contracts? This concerns UK Employment Law, specifically England. I work in a field that has shifts on Christmas and New Years' day, albeit very few positions so a significant number of the workforce is forced to take leave if they don't just happen to have their rest days in their 8-day cycle fall on them. I'm essentially on a zero-hour contract, however my contract says that when work is available I will be given 24 hour/week &quot;basic&quot;. There is usually more than enough work to go around and I can ask for overtime, with the exception of a few days in winter when our client airlines reduce their schedules. Before the pandemic, there was always a race for people to book Christmas off as the vast majority fairly reasonably don't want to work on Christmas Day and some are reliant on public transit (the company knows this and chose to hire us anyway). We're usually done by 11am unless a flight is delayed so it's not like I can't enjoy the holidays and work them (I can also refuse to work the past my scheduled finish time), however unless they remember to put me on shifts with colleagues who I can get a ride to/from work, it gets prohibitively expensive to get to and from work in a taxi. About a year before I started, the employment contract for new employees was changed. Staff before this point receive double pay for working bank holidays such as Christmas and New Year's Day. We, the newer staff, don't have that luxury. The older staff do not get double rate for leave taken on bank holidays, however. Because of the pandemic, the situation regarding Christmas is uncertain. It's widely suspected that the company, trying to cut losses after keeping two thirds of the workforce on furlough for months and (to their credit) covering the last 20% of our paychecks, is going to only give the shifts to the staff they don't have to pay double rate for, and only approve leave for those who are paid double rate or otherwise force them to take leave. Because of our contracts, the newer staff will cost the half the amount the older staff will. The management has reshuffled after a couple of them left, so we don't know if they're still aware of the issues we face or not, if they are willing to make those accomodations, or are going to assign shifts based on how much it'll cost alone. I know employers can choose when we can take leave, but what's the legality in this situation, could this be considered discriminatory in any way, for example, if someone who made the leave request first is deferred over someone more expensive to have in work?
If everyone hired after date X has a different contract from anyone hired before that date it is not discriminatory. (As long as they do nothing naughty like changing the contract, hiring three black people, changing the contract back).
Some kinds of companies (e.g. freight shipping companies and banks) often do have those policies. The real issue is not whether those policies are permitted, but what the consequences are for breaking them. The fact that a company forbids its employees from exercising a legal right doesn't mean that the employee ceases to have that legal right. It simply means that if the employee exercises that legal right, then the employee has breached the contract and may suffer the consequences for breaching that contract. Violations of those policies are grounds for termination from employment, and this would probably not be void as a matter of public policy. For an employee at will this is really pretty meaningless, although it could conceivably affect unemployment benefit eligibility. But, for a unionized or civil service employee who can only be fired for cause, this is a big deal. But, in theory, a company policy does not impact the tort liability or the criminal liability of the individual engaging in legally privileged self-defense to anyone. This is because two people can't contractually change their legal duties to third parties with whom they are not in privity (i.e. with whom they do not have a contractual relationship). And two people also can't contractually change the terms of a country's penal laws. The policy may be a defense of the company from vicarious liability for the employee's use of force in violation of the policy that gives rise to civil liability for the employee because the grounds for authorizing self-defense were not present. If the employee using force did so wrongfully and was sued for negligence rather than battery, the existence of the company policy might also go to the issue of whether the employee was acting negligently since a reasonable person in the employee's shoes might have been less likely to wrongfully use force in purported self-defense if there was such a policy than if there was not such a policy (and instead there might arguably have been a legal fiduciary duty as an agent to protect the property and workers of the principal in the absence of the policy).
Am I right to assume that once the notice has been issued to the other party, me and the client still work on the project for 14 days until the notice period expires and that the client is required to pay for the work that has been done in those 14 days In the absence of any other wording to the contrary, a contract continues as normal up until the day of termination. The fact that a party has given notice to terminate merely establishes the termination date, unless the notice clause says something different. Note that there is nothing to stop you drafting a clause which explicitly states this. Indeed, it is often useful to explicitly state things which are already implied as it helps to avoid any dispute from arising in the first place.
As I understand it, the legal distinction here is: Whose choice was it that you not continue in your job? If the company was prepared to offer you an extension, until you told them that you were not interested, you are leaving of your own free will, and would not be entitled to redundancy rights. If your employer did not extend the contract when you would have been willing to continue, that is either a redundancy, or a dismissal of another kind. If you were dismissed for valid cause, you have no redundancy rights. if you were let go because of a lack of work, or because the employer decided not to have anyone doing that job, that I gather would be redundancy.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1698485/Can-I-discuss-my-pay-with-colleagues.html In short, there are no laws prohibiting or rendering such contract clauses unenforceable, but an employer cannot rely on such a contractual clause to abrogate its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
There is a requirement of consultation, and if they don't follow the rules you can make a claim to an employment tribunal. Then urge following internal grievance procedures, and before you make a claim you need to tell the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that you plan to do so. However, if 20 or more employees are made redundant at once, then the consultation can be with a representative employee (either union or elected).
is it legally acceptable to state that 7.5 hours is the standard amount No. Because you are a contractor not employee, there is no "standard" to refer to. You are only entitled to what your contract provides for, that is £N per day no matter how much time you worked. That said, if there is no word "overtime" in the contract, you cannot use one to justify how much you charge. You can, though, charge for weekend days (unless the contract explicitly prohibits working on weekends). what should be done about going into the future with this work and asking for a revised contract? 1) Learn the lesson; 2) Make up your mind about what you want to be paid for: hours, days or output; 3) Discuss/negotiate contract terms with your clients.
Do I give my letter 60 days from the end of the contract, or 60 days before September? My boss told me that it would be 60 days before the end of the contract, but I wanted a second opinion. Your boss is wrong. The contract requires a party to give a 60-day notice only if the party intends to override the default condition that "the contract shall run for the full term named above". Since your contract ends on June 30th and you plan on working there up to and including that date, you are abiding by the [contract] default condition. Therefore, you are not required to send a notice for something you are not intending to do (namely, to terminate the contract ahead of schedule). The information you provide here does not reflect any language in your current contract relating to subsequent contracts/renewals. The existence of such language might or might not change the assessment. That issue aside, you might want to ensure that the preliminary offer made to you verbally be somehow reflected in writing. It will not be more binding than the verbal offer, but that evidence could prove useful in the event that the new employer unexpectedly changes its mind at a time when your current employer has discarded you for contract renewal. Your prospective employer should become aware of how its request for a reference from your boss jeopardizes a renewal with your current employer.