debt to employer?

[caledfwlch]

Hi all,

 

Mrs Caledfwlch recently left her employment at BHS after repeated bullying from managers, who also on many occasions "forgot" to schedule her legal and lawful break meaning she couldnt go on it! another trick was if you are serving a customer when your breaktime comes up , you have to finish serving that customer, and if your 15 minutes was up by the time you finish, then you were not allowed to take your break after!

 

Anyway, she has begun receiving letters from BHS saying that they overpaid her by £27 and threatening debt collection agencies. How lawful is this? especially since the amount of breaks they denied her add up to a a couple of hours at least. Where some complication arises, is the contract she was given and signed said 27 hours per week, but they only gave her shifts amounting to 19 hours, when she pointed this out they said oh sorry, we made a mistake, and took her contract off her (silly woman should have made a copy i suppose...) BUT they never brought her a new contract to sign, so in theory the only signed contract they have says 27 hours, which they probably binned. Im just wondering if anyone has any ideas.

 

The bullying by managers was reported to the HR manager who should have recorded the complaint, and asked the relevant managers to apologise - after that the bullying got worse, hence the Mrs leaving.

 

thanks

[Guest Zooman]

How long ago did she leave?

[caledfwlch]

she left in June, and had only been there about 2 - 2 and a half months.

 

Another little niggle with them, is they insisted that she had to wear a certain type of shoe for "health and safety" paid for by herself, even though the law states that any items of clothing for health and safety are to be provided by the employer, I was half thinking the price of her shoes she had to buy covers most of this £27

[Guest Zooman]

With those times she will just have to pay it, but only if the contact says that this is the case. All the bits and pieces mean nothing as she was there such a short time.

[caledfwlch]

What if they did chuck away the "incorrect" contract, in that case they have no signed contract with her! does that make a difference?

[Guest Zooman]

Yes if they if no contract then no money due.

 

What she could do is write to them saying she is unaware of the term in her contract that states that she has to pay money back. And I put you to proof that there is. Only a true certified copy of the contract will be accepted as proof. And remind them where there is no term indicates a duty in the contract to repay this amount that it is unenforceable and the courts would have no choice but to find in my favor.

[caledfwlch]

Yes if they if no contract then no money due.

 

What she could do is write to them saying she is unaware of the term in her contract that states that she has to pay money back. And I put you to proof that there is. Only a true certified copy of the contract will be accepted as proof. And remind them where there is no term indicates a duty in the contract to repay this amount that it is unenforceable and the courts would have no choice but to find in my favor.

 

Thanks - we will give that a go. Her worry is they may have kept the signed sheet and stuck it into a new contract which she has never seen.

[Guest Zooman]

In that case she will have to pay

[JonCris]

she left in June, and had only been there about 2 - 2 and a half months.

 

Another little niggle with them, is they insisted that she had to wear a certain type of shoe for "health and safety" paid for by herself, even though the law states that any items of clothing for health and safety are to be provided by the employer, I was half thinking the price of her shoes she had to buy covers most of this £27

 

As I recall an employer cannot require an employee to pay for "safety equipment" which is what they appeared to have claimed these shoes are. In fact I think it's a breach of the Health & Safety Regs 1992/1998

[Guest Zooman]

She has been there under 3 months, so they can. They can even claim back training courses and the like if they should wish to if it is the contract.

[Guest Zooman]

and it is abject anyway

[JonCris]

She has been there under 3 months, so they can. They can even claim back training courses and the like if they should wish to if it is the contract.

 

She can only go to an ET after 12 months employment except in specific cases such as sex/race discrimination where there are no time limits.

 

Employees must bring their claim to the ET within 3 months of the conduct unless there are specific reasons why they couldn't such as serious illness. The ET would have to agree to hear the late application

[Guest Zooman]

Where did ET come from, this is about an overpayment of wages. Why do you think my first question was

 

How long ago did she leave?

the next if needed would have been how long did she work for them.

 

The shoe issue is a side issue as this is overpayment and they have a right to claim it back if it is in the contract (and it will be or their legal department all need sacking). And you can require people to buy their uniform and in certain circumstances safety ware, mainly if they take the items home.

[JonCris]

Your reference to 3 months caused me to think you might be referring to her ET rights.

 

If an employee is overpaid then the employer can during the period of that employees employment deduct a sum no greater than 10% of their wages/salary until the total sum is repaid

 

However if the employee is leaving then they can deduct the full amount outstanding at the time of departure. All this whether it's in the contract or not.

 

However they cannot deduct any other monies imposed because of say the loss or damage to a piece of equipment unless the employee agrees & then at a maximum of only 10% of income per payment.

 

As for the safety shoes the employee should have returned them otherwise they can be charged & they can only be charged for training if they are leaving voluntarily.

[caledfwlch]

Regarding the overpayment, she was informed by her manager when tendering resignation. not to work her weeks notice, and to leave straight away, rather than finish the working week, due to harrassment by other managers. She then received a payslip a couple of weeks after that saying -27 and then a few days after that a letter demmanding the return of 27.

 

Obviously their payroll had done the calculations prior to her revising - but it was their decision to not have her finish her weekly shift requirements.

[JonCris]

Regarding the overpayment, she was informed by her manager when tendering resignation. not to work her weeks notice, and to leave straight away, rather than finish the working week, due to harrassment by other managers. She then received a payslip a couple of weeks after that saying -27 and then a few days after that a letter demmanding the return of 27.

 

Obviously their payroll had done the calculations prior to her revising - but it was their decision to not have her finish her weekly shift requirements.

 

If she is entitled to 1 weeks notice then they have to at least pay her in leu of her working her notice

 

ERA 1996 Part11

Deductions from Wages

When other deductions can be made

Authorised by statute or by a ‘relevant provision in the contract’

However the workers consent to the deduction or contractual agreement cannot be retrospective

Kent Management Services Ltd v Butterfield [1992]

Robertson v Blackmore Franks Investment Management Ltd [1998]

Southwark LBC v O’Brien [1996]

This prevents the employer from recovering payment by demand rather than deduction

 

Tell them if they do place the debt into the hands of a DCA you will complain to the Information Commissioners Office (did she sign a data consent form) If not you reserve the right to make a counter claim in a civil court for defamation