andyofborg Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Plus if they just walked out and didnt submit notice then they dont have to pay. A lot of trial periods state that the employer can give 1 days notice but the empoyee needs to give 1 weeks notice. If they were working on a trial period and didnt serve the notice then it is breech of contract and no pay. you should be paid up until the point you leave, if there is a breach of contract then its down to the employer to sue for such separately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Be careful, - it could backfire. If your friend was working then presumably the terms and conditions might have a minimum notice requirement, - if he didn't give that notice then the company can argue that they suffered reduced productivity because he didn't turn up when he was supposed to, - always know your terms and conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Having the law on your side is academic if the employers refuse to pay. You then have to take them to court and they can string it out indefinately, by which time you will probably have given up, which is what they are hoping for in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Every job that involves work has to be paid by law, there is actually no legal exemption. Though it has yet to be tested in court.A stage involves no pay and is common throughout the industry. It is an agreement between people and not necessarily employment. This could be the same thing. The only issue is who is the onus of proof on, the company or the person? In any case, if there was no contract that said there was to be no payment, then the law and therefore minimum wage would apply. The assumption would be that the minimum wage is due unless it is proved there was an agreement for no pay.Not necessarily. The thing again goes to the onus of proof, does the company have to prove the person agreed to work for free or does the person have to agree that the work would be paid in the absence of a written contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 No, you aren't getting it. The minimum wage and associated laws state that any type of "work" must be paid minimum wage. You can for example shadow someone without pay because you arent working. Whether or not it is enforced, if you work you are legally entitled to minimum wage - by law, so you cant cancel it. And you aren't getting it. In a court of law when its word against word it could go either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If the employer agrees that they did work for them, the rest is irrelevant. If the employer says "he never worked for me" and the employee claims the opposite, then yes it is word against word. But in the case where it is agreed that work was done, the law is clear - they must be paid minimum wage (unless it is an official apprenticeship of course).Not if there was no agreement of pay, you'd have to prove there was. Assumptions aren't enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 An agreement to work isn't necessarily an agreement that you will be paid to do that work I expect that a court would want proof that the work wasn't for pay rather than the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 It is irrelevant if they agreed there was to be no pay because by law all "work" is subject to the minimum wage....No it isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No it isn't irrelevant, or no all work is not subject to the minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No it isn't irrelevant, or no all work is not subject to the minimum wage?the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.