If you agreed to a protected conversation it's protected on both sides. Did they explain what that meant at the outset of the conversation? Did you agree to it? They may withdraw the offer and any money you manage to negotiate if you blab. If you can't keep to the terms, they can't rely on you. So IMHO you would be daft to gossip. The minute you breach the PC conditions you tell them there is no point settling with you. Usually you can discuss with a union rep or a family member during your decision making period.

Ethel is quite correct. And members of that unit are subject to the outcome of the consultation whether members or not.

Unclebulgaria has posted some helpful links. In the real world, you can go to an ET if you are treated unfairly due to union membership. That could be a long time getting to court, though. And stressful.

The onus tends to be on the employee to show how the work can be covered, In all the applications for flexible working I see, maybe a third actually address this. What did your friend propose for the details of work getting done?

There’s a question around what you think happened and what you can prove happened.

Hello, I cannot see what criminal actions the manager took - what am I missing? Thanks.

On garden leave you should be available to come in and answer any queries so no holiday is standard.

Ask if they will pay you 2 months pay to leave now. They save a month, you're free.

I would view "no pay" as the opening negotiation position.

Assume the date you gave is the date unless you are told otherwise; and then the date is your maximum notice period per your contract. You do not need to agree to anything else.

don't trust or assume anything. explain what happened. explain what you think was wrong with it. explain what you want to happen now.

that all sounds very sensible.

Hello, have they documented anywhere what you performance goals are? The difficulty in working with lawyers is they often take a "so sue me" stance to people management issues. I won't work for lawyers for this reason. Would any of the partners be open to giving you a fair hearing? I think it might end up as mediation, or one of you has to leave or be redeployed into another department, if you are not going to get along. Em

Let’s go to the source material. The Working Time Regulations 1998 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations implement Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (O.J. No. L307, 13.12.93, p.18) and provisions concerning working time... you won’t find anything saying the employer is obliged to offer you hours just because you opted out; because it isn’t there. And that is, I believe, the meat of your debate. you may persuade them somehow, but I don’t believe arguing a legal point is the way to do it. try charm, pleading poverty, demonstrating your work quality is higher than other workers.

You are confusing rights and obligations. you have a right to opt out. they are not obliged to do anything about that. I do not know how many times we can say the same thing in slightly different ways. get a lawyer; let them tell you the same in a more expensive way, then maybe you’ll believe it.

The client wants workers under 48 hours. The client pays the wages. End of story.

Ah, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the new role is at least mainly suited to you?

first, match up your timesheets and your [payslips and ask for an explanation of any errors. You don't report them, there is no official body paying attention. You go to small claims court.

1. Depends on the terms of your career break, some guarantee the same job, some do not. What does your agreement say? 2. No, you accrue holiday as soon as you start back.

I think a post has been deleted.

"a company accepting my right to opt out of WTR so I can work >48 hours is acting illegally in holding me to the WTR restrictions by refusing to let me work >48 hours." That isn't a law which exists...nothing illegal is happening.

Not all discrimination is illegal. You have not suggested you are being discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic. So I still cannot see anything illegal. I'm not guessing, I do this for a living, but you are free to consult and pay for a lawyer.

I can't see anything illegal happening here at all, unless there is additional information missing. Is there anything else we should know?

So the first disclosure of data was BIL to the merchant. Does he have a data sharing agreement with every customer covering that? I also cannot work out how this is related to the case other than non compete clauses. Feels like a potential red herring. Nothing to do with hours or pay change before he started working for himself - I would not waste my time.

any update SB?