Verbal warning for not working through your break

[Wildcat]

By break I mean "Lunch Break" plus before or after your contracted hours. E.g. arriving in the office 20 mins before your time to start but being expected to work.

 

Apparently not jumping at the chance to work my lunch means I'm not flexible enough and so I have been warned. Another warning I will be fired!

 

My only issue is I'm on probation as I have not long been here (even though I am yet to see a contract).

 

You have been given a lot of opinions based on what people have.

 

The law says this:

 

Rest breaks at work

A worker is entitled to an uninterrupted break of 20 minutes when daily working time is more than six hours. It should be a break in working time and should not be taken either at the start, or at the end, of a working day.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtime.htm

 

Note: The HSE isn't responsible for enforcement of breaks, it is an employment law matter.

 

I expect you have something contractually better than this minimum position. You should be able to tell by looking at your works policy documents on working time and patterns that should be available... most big work places will have them on your intranet.

 

Re: person that said you need 3 warnings before a dismissal is wrong. In exceptional circumstances people can be summarily dismissed. I think the person giving that advice may have got confused with the 3 stages to a disciplinary\grievance procedure under the dispute resolution procedures in the Employment Act, but even that was removed a year or so ago, and was for a particular stage it never was the case that 3 warnings were required before a dismissal. The 3 stage process to disciplinaries\grievances (normally - informal\ formal meeting and appeal meeting) was something different and no longer applies (although it remains sensible and probably still is a part of your companies policies).

 

In your circumstances on probation I am not sure what the case is, but you are vulnerable. I know where I work at the end of the probation period with no warnings at all they can decide not to take you on because of "performance issues". Prior to one year of working I don't think they even need to give a reason for dismissal.

 

Your best protection is to join a union because they won't let people be picked off for asserting their legal rights. Even if you aren't currently a member I would put to them what has happened, along with a genuine intention to join. They should have an idea of how to raise it or whether to log the case for raising after probation has finished. I would suggest, if other workers are being expected to work through their lunch breaks that they raise it as a collective abuse of the law, without them needing to identify you as the source of the complaint.

 

I hope this helpful,

[SHsheff]

Does anyone know of the legality of this? I'm pretty sure employers are legally required to allow staff to have a break from their computers, however this is not the opinion of mine. They seem to think that even if its not your contracted hours. If you're in the office, you are there to work.

 

My opinion? - it doesn't matter what the law says, not to you. I'm guessing that you don't work for a large company with an HR department and a union? In which case, your real choice is to work as they say, or be fired. Until you've been there a year you have no employment rights (unless you fall into certain categories and you're fired for particular reasons). In your probationary period they can just say, sorry, it's not working out - at which point you're out.

 

It sounds like they're not a nice company to work for. However, it IS work. So, my advice would be, head down, mouth shut, work, keep getting paid (I'm assuming pay is important to you?) and apply like mad for other jobs while you have one - it's true that it's easier to get a job when you have one - ask anyone who's unemployed.

[Wildcat]

One word of advice from someone who's fallen foul of things similar in the past - remember who HR work for.

They don't work for you.

They work for the employer. In a fight, don't count on them to side against their own employer.

 

Wise words.

 

More often than not HR haven't sold their souls to the dark side. Most are genuinely caring people that will see both sides and try to help..... BUT there are some that aren't and even if others have good experiences of HR it may depend on who picks up the phone to take the case on. Your conversation with them is unlikely to be confidential and you cannot rely on them looking to your best interests.

[Cyclone]

The post from SHSheff is good practical advice.

 

Try to make a record though of being warned for taking a legal break. Then if you are sacked you'd be likely to win compensation at the resulting tribunal.

[SHsheff]

You'd better get back to your work quick! Let's hope for your sake they don't monitor internet useage!

 

And, although I don't think you mean it quite like I'm about to take it....that's a good point! The OP's post was made at 12.45 or thereabouts, today. So...in your lunch break?

 

If you're not working your socks off and have time to come on Sheffield Forum, your employer would have a good case against you (not that they need one during your probationary period) as not being a dedicated employee.

[Wildcat]

The post from SHSheff is good practical advice.

 

Try to make a record though of being warned for taking a legal break. Then if you are sacked you'd be likely to win compensation at the resulting tribunal.

 

Assuming they are able to bring an employment tribunal.

 

Under a years employment there is no obligation on the employer to give a reason for dismissal and you can only go to employment tribunal if the reasons for dismissal are such that the dismissal would be "automatically unfair".

 

That is not to say an employment tribunal is impossible, but in the first year you are vulnerable and can't assert yourself individually with the same protections you would normally expect.

[Cyclone]

If they are going through a process of issuing warnings then it would be likely that they'd use it as a reason for terminating the contract at the end of the probation period though.

[Wildcat]

If they are going through a process of issuing warnings then it would be likely that they'd use it as a reason for terminating the contract at the end of the probation period though.

 

And if that process was flawed it is unlikely to be automatically unfair

[wednesday1]

Wise words.

 

More often than not HR haven't sold their souls to the dark side. Most are genuinely caring people that will see both sides and try to help..... BUT there are some that aren't and even if others have good experiences of HR it may depend on who picks up the phone to take the case on. Your conversation with them is unlikely to be confidential and you cannot rely on them looking to your best interests.

 

 

My experience of HR these day's is that they are tools of management who just seem to be there to rubber stamp management decisions.

[Berberis]

Thanks to everyone who has been helpful.

 

I asked this question as I just wanted to know my rights. I’m not going to push anything as the warning has already been issued, albeit unfairly in my view and possibly illegally in the eyes of the law. However, it’s a job and unless things progress I won’t be doing anything about it.

 

I am certainly looking elsewhere as I feel the job was not as advertised. Many things are very different to how they were portrayed to me, so just on this basis I would be seeking employment elsewhere. The warning was just another issue that has helped focus my mind on getting out.