Hi Hammy An excellent description! If MrShed has nothing to bring to the table in threads he usually just lampoons my posts! But he does amuse-bless him!

Which is basically what I previously posted! Very little is government funded-it is a directive to the suppliers from the government to do this. And I think you have got EON's figures wrong btw!

I'm the only Weird Al!:cool:

This is odd as I have campaign leaflets from the tories addressed to me yet I'd prefer to put pins in my eyes than entertain that lot. Interesting.

Is it a campaign leaflet for a local election or a regular council news update? Is the local politician the elected member for your area? Have you ever sought advice from this member in the past? Are you of the same political persuasion as the politician and a member of that party? Did you forget to opt out of the register last year? Ever pay toward a charity where you may have filled out your details? Ever signed any form that may be of political interest?

On the face of it, the contractors are liable in this situation. They commenced work. Which means they are responsible for the work area they prepared and began working on. However, a cutomer entered the shop.... Who decided to keep the shop open during building work on the roof of a shop?

Very good. I like miss J.

Hello buddy I think the procedure here is to start your own thread. But do give as much info as possible, ok?

I'm outta here!

Not the case I'm afraid. This is considered gross misconduct and as such he could have been sacked on the spot, let alone only suspended. However OP, it appears you have made a bit of a mess of the situation as you have revealed you have already actually dealt with it-as you say you confronted him and threatened to deduct his wages if you catch him again. That to me sounds like you made a decision and clearly gave him another opportunity. To then change your mind smacks of indicisivness. Have you informed the worker you have changed your mind? Have you written to him with the charges alleged? Was he aware freebies such as this are not allowed? More info please.

Not considered as a claim!! :(Please Lord......help me!!

Hello OP. With particular regard to your friend then they will need to wait to see what does transpire obviously. However, on what you have revealed thus far, your friend may have a potential claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract if we are to assume they will be sacked on the basis of simply following their employer's orders. To have refused to sell in the way they were told could have been considered a disciplinary matter by the employer yet it appears it is also a disciplinary matter for actually obeying those same instructions! Could you give some detail about those who have been sacked? Such as how many, their respective lengths of service, official reason for dismissal etc.

If, if and if! Of course there is financial loss from a redundancy as it is considered a dismissal. But because the OP cannot bring a redundancy claim then the financial loss is irrelevant as it cannot be considered. Which is why the (likely) response of the employer is all important. You surely must now realise that should the employer argue the OP was made redundant then the OP has not a chance. Which is what I said in the first place.

Pardon? So you are willing to advise on this thread but without even considering the likely defence of the employer? Kinda like a bit odd is that not?

Are you ignoring the points raised or misreading? 1 I haven't mentioned anything about the job offer not being stated. What I have raised is that the specific clause that the OP 'will be compensated' should the employer retract a job offer is not present. 2 In the absence of that then you are suggesting that a breach of contract claim can be brought nonetheless. I have not disagreed with this! However, bringing a claim and being successful are two very different things. 3 Should the OP bring a claim in a county court then it could easily be thrown out as the employer can argue the OP was selected for redundancy. The county court cannot rule on this. 4 So now we have the ET. A redundancy complaint is not valid due to lack of service. So, back to an alleged breach of contract. 5 Again, the employer defends on the basis of a redundancy. 6 Considering the credit crunch, rising unemployment, falling orders etc etc are you really suggesting that an ET will rule that it is unreasonable for a company to restrict taking on new staff and that a redundancy, and probably many others, is instead a breach of contract?

Ok, how does the OP overcome this hurdle- 1 County Court action-employer simply states the OP was selected for redundancy? How do you propose a county court can rule on that defence to a claim?

Now we appear to be getting somewhere. I have stated the employer has a very easy defence in a county court if they use a redundancy defence as it will be thrown out. Therefore the OP would need to bring an ET claim. And I would bet my house they would not succeed. The contract must have had provision within it for what has happened otherwise it is simply no breach of contract but just a redundancy. How do you propose a successful action in an ET where no breach has happened and the OP does not qualify for redundancy?

For the OP's particular circumstance as described then I am entirely correct. For example, if a company car is not provided for as part of my job, and contract, then I cannot sue for breach of contract just to get one. This is the important principle you are overlooking here. It would needed to have been stated, as in the OP's case.

Oh dear, this is getting tedious. Let me give you an example of how most employers defend this type of event with your approach to how the OP has recourse, according to you. Firstly, the employer will simply challenge the county court's jurisdiction as the employer, with good advice, will state the issue brought is not a breach of contract but, rather, an employment dispute as the OP's offer of employment was withdrawn due to financial concerns that arose after the offer of employment was made and thus, effectively, the OP was made redundant before he could take up his post. That is an employment dispute as redundancy would be the reason, not a breach of contract. Therefore, the OP would then need to make an ET claim where he could allege a breach of contract yet again as a redundancy claim would be invalid. However, the employer yet again pleads the defence that the OP was selected for redundancy due to the restructure (for financial concerns). In the current climate of probable recession this would be entirely reasonable and acceptable. Also, I am ignoring the fact that a contract of employment had actually become valid in any case, which appears it could well not be. As stated previously, unless the contract specifically stated this event of circumstance was stated within a clause then the OP will have no chance whatsoever of any success for a breach of contract in a county court with a likely defence as I have described. And you will still ignore this I'm sure.

The recourse in this circumstance would have been for the OP to be able to sue for, basically, not being finished up in the new job, maybe for a period of time, and/or to sue for damages because that has actually happened and this would need to have been stated in the contract. As it wasn't stated like this in the contract then there is no breach of contract. The OP was offered a job and it was later withdrawn due to restrucuring the company ie saving money on staff costs. Are you telling me an employee with no service, or just weeks of service, is able to sue for damages, and succeed, when all the company has to do to defend is to say they restructured their business and operated redundancy on a last in first out policy, for example? A restructure is almost always financially based. By law the OP would have no redundancy entitlement yet you suggest they can sue for breach of contract where it can be argued by the employer it is in fact a redundancy! The OP, unfortuantely, has not a chance.

Sorry about correcting the above but it does annoy. Yes, I am correct on this issue and to view the contract in this circumstance is fairly academic. Unless the contract stated that in the specific event of what has happened to the OP they would have recourse then they have no chance of success. As the OP has not mentioned this one can safely conclude it does not.

edited Unfortunately OP, it appears you were offered a job and that has been withdrawn due to 'restructuring.' No doubt this restructuring and a hold on external recruitment would be argued as due to financial pressures in these difficult times. There is not a chance you would get anywhere so don't even waste your time, or money.

edited I think you'll find a lot of people like this. It's not awkward just a fact. But you inhabit a strange little world!!!

Wrong, my new employer did and my policeman mate replied on force headed paper and stamp franked with South Wales Police! Kinda blows your thinking a little wide eh shedsy?

There we have it then! Just because somebody doesn't drive or go abroad on holiday they are now unable to work in the UK according to shedsy! I can't take anymore!!