suspened - no pay no real details, please help

[caring guy]

I work for a large national company who speclalize in employment.

 

I received a call this morning from the company saying i'm suspened (with no pay) pending investigation. I have been asked to go to a investigatory meeting next Monday. I am accuseed of making a "racial remark" by another member of temporary staff and an unnamed full time county council manager has also raised some concern over my work conduct. No further details were given.

 

I have a zero hours contract. In the next 3 days i am missing a lot of work and this is a lot of money i am going to lose.

 

The person who decided to suspend me is off site for 2 days so i cannot speak to them until the meeting on Monday morning.

 

A fellow colleague got the same treatment last week. When he went to his meeting no comment was made about an alleged racist remark but they reeled off 5 minor offences he had allegedly committed in a 12 month period. 4 of these were raised over 6 months ago and he verbally answered these on the phone.

 

He is also suspended unpaid waiting to see what happens. He asked why these 4 previous things were raised at the meeting if they had already been dealt with on the phone - no answer.

 

My questions are:

 

Can i lbe suspended without pay even though i'm innocent until proved guilty?

 

Can a company reel things off that allegedly happened over 6 months ago?

 

Thanks.

[MONX]

Someone with more knowledge and experience will be along to advise you soon but from what I have learned in my short time on this topic in the forum, is that you can be suspended without pay if you have a zero hour contract. I wouldnt proport to be any kind of expert on this but am going through something similar with my partner and this has been said before regarding zero hour contracts.

[SarEl]

Yes - I am afraid this is correct. You have not, in law, been suspended without pay. You have been suspended, but since you have a zero hours contract you have no entitlement to pay unless you work. The employer is never under any obligation to offer you work, and they are simply not offering you work.

 

You are not "innocent until proven guilty" - suspension is a neutral act anyway, and does not presuppose guilt, but the correct phrase in employment law would be "innocent until reasonably believed to be guilty". An employer does not require proof of guilt, only reasonable belief of it.

 

And yes, the company can raise things that happened six months ago, although this may be challenged if they knew about them at the time and did nothing (which could also be hard to prove).

[caring guy]

Thank you both for your input - much appreciated.

 

I have now been told by the agency i have not been accused of any racist behaviour. That person was wrong to say that to me.

 

I am accused of unprofessional behaviour and no details of this have been substantiated yet.

 

The work i had for today, friday and next week has been reallocated to other people. This has cost me around £900.

 

I'm told i am not suspended but will not be considered for work in the field i work in but i can accept work in a different field, if offered to me.

 

I'm told that even if the county council come up with nothing else against me it's thier perogative to say "we do not want Mr ??????????? to work for us" - even if i have done nothing wrong.

 

Therefore i have lost a job worth over £35,000 a year with no evidence at all. The agency will not fight my case.

 

This is appalling.

[SarEl]

Since this is agency work, their clients are always able to refuse anyone they send them. Clients can accept, or not accept, anyone they want, for any reason they want (unless they overtly break the law like saying "no black people"). The agency will not fight your corner because (a) there is nothing they can do about it and (b) they want to continue to get work from their clients. Sorry, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is the risk of agency work.

[caring guy]

Since this is agency work, their clients are always able to refuse anyone they send them. Clients can accept, or not accept, anyone they want, for any reason they want (unless they overtly break the law like saying "no black people"). The agency will not fight your corner because (a) there is nothing they can do about it and (b) they want to continue to get work from their clients. Sorry, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is the risk of agency work.

 

A fellow worker was recently suspended for taking her baby to work for 4 hours (we transport children as part of the job and they are not allowed to be exposed to anybody apart from the member of staff and their parents).

 

The member of staff was suspended for 3 weeks unpaid but was reinstated. When this worker was told she could be dismissed for gross misconduct she "played the race card" you refer to. I was at the meeting with them so this is not hear-say.

 

This act was totally unprofessional and was clearly a case of "gross misconduct". I'm really suprised she survived.

 

I'm now possibly facing some allegations or not but i have no cards to play and may lose my job even though i have done nothing wrong (i suspect).

 

Double standards? Possibly.

 

2 other colleagues have also been suspended / had their worksheets removed with no details forthcoming - yet!

[SarEl]

The member of staff was suspended for 3 weeks unpaid but was reinstated. When this worker was told she could be dismissed for gross misconduct she "played the race card" you refer to.

 

At no time did I, nor would I, say any such thing. What I said was that it would be unlawful for a client to issue an agency with an instruction which was unlawful such as "we won't accept black workers".

[caring guy]

Maybe i did not word that well but i think you can see what i meant.

 

I'ts been a long day!

[Atlas01]

If you work for an agency on a 0 hrs contract then anything that is fair or unfair is a moot point, you have the employment rights akin to an 18th century mill worker and as your confirmed salary is £0 you also have pretty much no redress financially either

 

Come back when the allegations are put forward (if you get the chance to defend them) but unless i've missed something nearly every agency worker i have come across (and it is many) goes the way of the dodo with the employing company as soon as the allegation is made, forget being heard.

 

Sorry to be so grim but it's as honest as i can be so there's no confusion.

[SarEl]

Depending on which bit of the 18th century it was you were referring to - very possibly less rights than them!

[caring guy]

Just a slight update.

 

After being verbally told i was suspened i am now told i am not suspened and i just cannot operate in my "normal environment".

 

After being told i was accused of making a "racist remark" this has now been totally dropped.

 

I am still accused of "unprofessional behaviour and not following professional guidelines".

 

I have a meeting on Monday morning as part of an investigation.

 

I requsted a copy of the company disciplinary procedure and a letter stating why i am being investigated. I was told they were being sent.

 

The procdure arrived in the post on the next day but no letter so i am going into a meeting blind without knowing what the allegations are. The procedure book says a letter must be sent stating the reasons i am being investigated. Oh dear!

 

The 3 people suspened so far are all people who are geographically expensive to employ. Seems odd to me. We are the "big 3" earners. We are paid mileage and travel time.

 

I'm going to take them apart on Monday!

[SarEl]

What with exactly? Threaten to remove your zero hours contract and take it elsewhere?

 

I can't see any logic to "suspending" (and I thought you said that you were not suspended?) staff and going through a whole trumped up investigatory / disciplinary process in order to "dismiss" staff who have no guaranteed right to work or be paid. The easiest way to deal with these staff, if this is based on cost, is simply to say that they are sorry but there is no work for you, and they will let you know when some suitable work comes in - and never phone you again. So proceeding to an iinvestigation when, as you said previously, the County Council in which you were placed are entitled simply to say that they don't want you any more, without any explanation... well, this defies all sense

 

If you are depending on a minor alleged error in the procedure, then be very careful - even if you were, at some time down the line, to be dismissed (as opposed to simply having no work offered), such a minor error would not be something that a tribunal would consider important. You have been informed as to the allegations verbally - unprofessional behaviour and not following professional guidelines - and that is all they have to tell you. That is a statement of the reasons why you are being investigated. I would suggest that no matter how angry you are about all this, going in all guns blazing over a matter of little consequence would be a poor strategy. You are talking to an "employer" who doesn't have to accept you in their workplace (the Council) and an agency who don't have to place you in any workplace. How is antagonising them going to help you? Would it not be better to show them a calm and professional attitude, listen to what is being said, and show them how the allegations are unfounded, so that hopefully you can just get back to work.

 

Of course, it may be the case that after all this you don't want to work for either again, and that would be understandable. But presumably if you wish to take your services elsewhere you will still need a refrence from these people, and leaving in a fit of anger having "yaken them apart" isn't going to help you with that.

 

You are not in a strong position here, and I would suggest that your best strategy is to come out of this in a position where you can easily find work again, whether with them or someone else. Isn't it?

[caring guy]

Thank you for your reply.

 

Once i told the company i was being represented things changed (for the better - i think). The racist thing was dropped like a stone and then i was told i wasn't suspended at all!

 

I totally agree with the theory if they do not want me to work for them they could just give me blank rotas.

 

This company have failed to follow their own procedures thus far and the incompetence has been staggering.

 

My 2 colleagues have had investogatory meetings where the three things put to them were over 6 months old and both colleagues said the matter was dealt with verbally on the phone at the time (9 months ago roughly).

 

This whole situation just not make sense at all and i do not like employers who feel they can walk all over people with no good reason.

 

When i have been wronged i tend to make employers squirm a bit too.

[papasmurf1cx]

Have just read this thread and it struck me that the council, in this current climate, are making the savings to the public purse that the Government have dictated they make (3 highest earners/ travel expenses comment). I also think that since you have made headway in getting them to revise the allegations shows this too. Perhaps if you went in to this investigation acknowledging that you realise that you are expensive and tried to find a way forward that reduces the council cost whilst still employing you, could be a consideration for them. (Cards on the table ie you know why they are doing this) No doubt that would raise issues too !! It seems crazy to get rid of a good worker where some sort of compromise can be made if possible, as caggers say why bother to investigate if all that is necessary is to 'not ask you to work'.

[SarEl]

Have just read this thread and it struck me that the council, in this current climate, are making the savings to the public purse that the Government have dictated they make (3 highest earners/ travel expenses comment). I also think that since you have made headway in getting them to revise the allegations shows this too. Perhaps if you went in to this investigation acknowledging that you realise that you are expensive and tried to find a way forward that reduces the council cost whilst still employing you, could be a consideration for them. (Cards on the table ie you know why they are doing this) No doubt that would raise issues too !! It seems crazy to get rid of a good worker where some sort of compromise can be made if possible, as caggers say why bother to investigate if all that is necessary is to 'not ask you to work'.

 

But that also isn't logical (although it was a good idea!) - the Council does not employ the OP (and may not even engage the other two - we don't know) and the fastest way to save money is to simply phone the agency and say "due to cuts we cannot retain XX workers, and don't send them any more". Why go to all the trouble of manufacturing a complaint and then going to the investigation meeting (which the OP said that they were)? And as for the agency, their "cut" is based on the payments made to their workers, so they have no real interest in reducing what they are paid; but if they did have to reduce it because of council cuts, it would be a simple matter of saying that the contract has been rengotiated and the OP can take it or leave it - this is a zero hours contract so there is no comeback if they do this. If anything, then the scenario seems to me to be one of two directions: either the Council really are concerned about something that they believe the OP has done; or one of their staff has made a complaint and they want to clear it up (possibly because they don't believe it) and want to get the OP back to work whilst showing that they have taken a complaint seriously. Wasting time on investigations and meetings for someone they don't employ and don't have any commitment to seems to be pointless.

[papasmurf1cx]

SarEl I knew you would succinctly dismantle my thoughts!!!! I just wanted to highlight my impression that something else is probably going on and that all that we as caggers know is what the OP tells us. We all know from other OP's and their posts that the whole story is never told, sometimes because the OP is not aware of many of the facts themselves. So trying to second guess from experience of what goes on generally sometimes is an option.

[SarEl]

Yep I agree - something else is going on because the zero hours contract means that there are easy ways to dispose of an expensive worker! But equally, if they want to dispose of the OP for some other reason, it is equally easy without going to all this hassle. So I am not at all sure why they are!!!

[peachiebird]

Aren't some of you possibly overstating the effect of a zero hours contract? Those are normally for work industries with schedules that entail variation due to unoforecasted volume of work, sharing of the same tasks among a number of employees, etc (ie, in some cases waiters, hotel staff, air crew, etc). Aren't Zero hours are to facilitate VARIATION of work patterns where legitimate for operations of the business, but not to enable a one-sided revocation of work? If the work pattern was in fact unvaried and fixed over a recent substantial extensive period of time, and a sudden unexpected withdrawal of work causes adverse consequences, doesnt the employer have a duty by custom and practice to consult or adhere to notice? Custom and practice is recognised by law and zero hours not even defined in law. What do you think?

[SarEl]

Aren't some of you possibly overstating the effect of a zero hours contract? Those are normally for work industries with schedules that entail variation due to unoforecasted volume of work, sharing of the same tasks among a number of employees, etc (ie, in some cases waiters, hotel staff, air crew, etc). Aren't Zero hours are to facilitate VARIATION of work patterns where legitimate for operations of the business, but not to enable a one-sided revocation of work? If the work pattern was in fact unvaried and fixed over a recent substantial extensive period of time, and a sudden unexpected withdrawal of work causes adverse consequences, doesnt the employer have a duty by custom and practice to consult or adhere to notice? Custom and practice is recognised by law and zero hours not even defined in law. What do you think?

 

I think this is an employment agency and therefore there is never any promise of work. If the agency's client refuses the worker then there is no comeback on the agency for failure to find the OP work. So no - I don't think that the case has been in any way overstated.

 

I also think, although I have not raised it because it isn't relevant, that the OP may not actually be an employee. Reference was made to paying for travel time and mileage. Since this would be normal during the course of a job, it wouldn't be worth mentioning, so I suspect that the OP actually is not on a "zero hours contract" but is self-employed - a common arrangement with employment agencies. But since that would make the advice no different, it wasn't worth questioning.

[caring guy]

i am definitely not self-employed as i am PAYE.

 

I am on a zero hours contract.

[peachiebird]

i am definitely not self-employed as i am PAYE.

 

I am on a zero hours contract.

 

Have your hours, work pattern and pay been static or varied?

[caring guy]

I have 3 different clients who i worked with every week on set days. I have worked these hours for the last 6 months with the same 3 clients. This was giving me 40 hours work per week. I also worked Saturdays as extra hours (1 in 2).

 

Since not working i have lost nearly £800.

[peachiebird]

It may be something of a grey area, but it would be interesting to hear anyone's perspective about whether a six month period of consistent and unvaried hours can be considered or argued as having become an agreed quanity of hours and a fixed pattern of work which by custom and practice over that extended period can then be implied into the contract to supersede the vaguely designated zero hour contention.

[SarEl]

i am definitely not self-employed as i am PAYE.

 

I am on a zero hours contract.

 

Strange. To be honest I hadn't given it any thought as it didn't occur to me until you mentioned travel time and mileage. But as I said, it wasn't relvant anyway, so I didn't mention it. Why did you mention travel time and mileage - out of curiousity?

[caring guy]

It may be something of a grey area, but it would be interesting to hear anyone's perspective about whether a six month period of consistent and unvaried hours can be considered or argued as having become an agreed quanity of hours and a fixed pattern of work which by custom and practice over that extended period can then be implied into the contract to supersede the vaguely designated zero hour contention.

 

My rota was e-mailed to me every week on the same day (Fridays).