If the employee is moving from a casual contract to a permanent one and there has not been any break in service whatsoever, then I believe that continuity of employment would apply.
My understanding is to the contrary - number of absences and total hours can be included as factual information but reasons for absence are a no-no. Therefore as it's all factual the risk is with recipient using it incorrectly rather than with you supplying it
Would be helpful for some further clarification if my understanding is incorrect however.
My experiences with recruitment consultants have, on the whole, been negative I'm afraid.
Agencies repeatedly call, even if you place ads that clearly state 'no agencies'. Managers just simply don't have the time to field such calls.
It is also quite often the case that recruitment consultants will try to fit a square peg into a round hole and are less than honest about candidates and / or vacancies. One example is that we were recruiting for a Customer Services Manager where one of the responsibilities would be staff training. Agency sent a CV over for an L&D professional confirming that they were aware of the role and wanted a change of direction. Interviewee arrives with a briefing sheet from the agency for a L&D Officer position. The agency had placed the vacancy on their website under this job title. Needless to say both the candidate and me as the recruiter were less than impressed.
Recruitment consultants are to all extents and purposes salespeople who are paid hefty commissions for results. When money gets involved scruples often go out of the window.
Sorry to be so negative but that's my experience of agencies from a recruiter's perspective - I am yet to experience it from a candidate's perspective!
I agree with all of the advice laid out above, but feel you need to be really careful about making assumptions. Many people who are completely innocent but were the last person to handle financial information implicated in a fraud case involving the police may too feel pretty anxious and stressed.
The employee's reaction doesn't automatically indicate guilt, but it is apparent to me that you believe this employee to be "guilty before proven innocent"! There's no wonder then that the employee has failed to seek support for his stress or anxiety if that is the culture within the organisation. I too may think twice in similar circumstances!
Have you conducted a wellbeing telephone call just to see how the employee is doing? Have you pointed them towards some form of support service e.g. an EAP if your organisation provides one? Have you sent them a letter to acknowlede receipt of the fit note, make sure they know they are supported and who to contact for further help?
I would suggest your focus at this stage should be to provide support necessary to the employee and help him get back on track, regardless as to whether you suspect his involvement in the fraud. After all, unless the police tell you otherwise, they are at this stage only your suspicions.
Whilst I understand the concept of applying a fixed percentage, how does this leave the business in relation to unfair treatment of zero hours workers?
Applying a flat % rate regardless of length of service could mean that the zero hours worker will accrue holiday at a lesser rate than their fixed contracted hours part time colleagues.
Our staff get basic holiday of between 22 - 27 days (plus bank holidays) based on service. If you include the 8 bank holidays on top this works out to be 30 - 35 days holiday which based on our contracted full time week of 40 hours per week (2080 per year) is a holiday % that varies between 11.53% and 13.46%.
To ensure that all staff are treated equally should we not apply the same percentage holiday to zero hours as we do to their part time fixed contracted hours colleagues?
The allegations if taken as gospel could be serious - including the intimidation and bullying of children. However, the empoloyee is refuting the claims and has given a rational explanation of what has happened on each occasion and how they have potentially twisted it to suit their aims.
The employee's argument is that if she was intimidating children for so long why would the committee continue to send their children to her, especially as they failed to raise anything with either us as her employer or her as their coach.
If it goes to a disciplinary hearing it's difficult to see how it is ever going to get anywhere because none of the witnesses on either side are impartial as they all have children attending the club or are committee members.
Are there not tax implications to consider when making someone redundant and then re-employing them within the same tax year?
Could you not have the situation where an employee (who after being made redundant was perhaps forced to take a lower paid job, or experienced loss of pension or other benefits)when notified that their original job is now being advertised less than 6 months later has rise to a claim?
My discussion replies
If the employee is moving from a casual contract to a permanent one and there has not been any break in service whatsoever, then I believe that continuity of employment would apply.
My understanding is to the contrary - number of absences and total hours can be included as factual information but reasons for absence are a no-no. Therefore as it's all factual the risk is with recipient using it incorrectly rather than with you supplying it
Would be helpful for some further clarification if my understanding is incorrect however.
My experiences with recruitment consultants have, on the whole, been negative I'm afraid.
Agencies repeatedly call, even if you place ads that clearly state 'no agencies'. Managers just simply don't have the time to field such calls.
It is also quite often the case that recruitment consultants will try to fit a square peg into a round hole and are less than honest about candidates and / or vacancies. One example is that we were recruiting for a Customer Services Manager where one of the responsibilities would be staff training. Agency sent a CV over for an L&D professional confirming that they were aware of the role and wanted a change of direction. Interviewee arrives with a briefing sheet from the agency for a L&D Officer position. The agency had placed the vacancy on their website under this job title. Needless to say both the candidate and me as the recruiter were less than impressed.
Recruitment consultants are to all extents and purposes salespeople who are paid hefty commissions for results. When money gets involved scruples often go out of the window.
Sorry to be so negative but that's my experience of agencies from a recruiter's perspective - I am yet to experience it from a candidate's perspective!
I agree with all of the advice laid out above, but feel you need to be really careful about making assumptions. Many people who are completely innocent but were the last person to handle financial information implicated in a fraud case involving the police may too feel pretty anxious and stressed.
The employee's reaction doesn't automatically indicate guilt, but it is apparent to me that you believe this employee to be "guilty before proven innocent"! There's no wonder then that the employee has failed to seek support for his stress or anxiety if that is the culture within the organisation. I too may think twice in similar circumstances!
Have you conducted a wellbeing telephone call just to see how the employee is doing? Have you pointed them towards some form of support service e.g. an EAP if your organisation provides one? Have you sent them a letter to acknowlede receipt of the fit note, make sure they know they are supported and who to contact for further help?
I would suggest your focus at this stage should be to provide support necessary to the employee and help him get back on track, regardless as to whether you suspect his involvement in the fraud. After all, unless the police tell you otherwise, they are at this stage only your suspicions.
Whilst I understand the concept of applying a fixed percentage, how does this leave the business in relation to unfair treatment of zero hours workers?
Applying a flat % rate regardless of length of service could mean that the zero hours worker will accrue holiday at a lesser rate than their fixed contracted hours part time colleagues.
Our staff get basic holiday of between 22 - 27 days (plus bank holidays) based on service. If you include the 8 bank holidays on top this works out to be 30 - 35 days holiday which based on our contracted full time week of 40 hours per week (2080 per year) is a holiday % that varies between 11.53% and 13.46%.
To ensure that all staff are treated equally should we not apply the same percentage holiday to zero hours as we do to their part time fixed contracted hours colleagues?
Thanks
The allegations if taken as gospel could be serious - including the intimidation and bullying of children. However, the empoloyee is refuting the claims and has given a rational explanation of what has happened on each occasion and how they have potentially twisted it to suit their aims.
The employee's argument is that if she was intimidating children for so long why would the committee continue to send their children to her, especially as they failed to raise anything with either us as her employer or her as their coach.
If it goes to a disciplinary hearing it's difficult to see how it is ever going to get anywhere because none of the witnesses on either side are impartial as they all have children attending the club or are committee members.
Are there not tax implications to consider when making someone redundant and then re-employing them within the same tax year?
Could you not have the situation where an employee (who after being made redundant was perhaps forced to take a lower paid job, or experienced loss of pension or other benefits)when notified that their original job is now being advertised less than 6 months later has rise to a claim?