+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Sick pay or not sick pay? (/showthread.php?tid=863)
Pages:
1
2
Sick pay or not sick pay? - trowelfodder - 11th March 2008
If a company chooses not to pay its diiging (but not office staff) sick pay what is the legal stand point on this?
Is it legal to offer a few pounds a day in lew of this without consulting with staff or should we hope to at some point ever qualify for crazy benefits such as sick pay and pensions or is this pie in the sky hopes from us? Some have worked for the company for over a year?
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Sparky - 12th March 2008
All full-time, part-time and fixed term contract staff are eligable for statutory sick pay. Self-employed individuals are eligable for incapacity benefit. As of 6th April 2007, SSP is fixed at ?72.55 / week (taxable) but may increase according to your contract.
SSP is not paid until after the first 3 days when you are unable to work. If you have received SSP with 8 weeks since you last received it then you will qualify automatically. You can only receive SSP for an unbroken period of 28 weeks.
If a company is not paying its (presumably) fixed-term contract site staff SSP who qualify for SSP then they are breaking the law. There shouldn't be any difference unless their sick pay is above the minimum ?72.55, as specified in their contract.
Sick pay or not sick pay? - trowelfodder - 12th March 2008
There is statutory sick pay but im asking about actual full waged sicked pay. And is it ok to have different conditions imposed on field vs office staff?
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Sparky - 12th March 2008
Fully waged sick pay I can only assume is something that must have been written into a contract. The company doesn't have to pay it unless there has been an agreement between employee and employer.
Check your contract.
It doesn't sound fair but it is probaly legal. It wouldn't surprise me to see the gap between site staff and office staff still being prised apart with perks such as that.
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Oxbeast - 12th March 2008
In short, yes.
It is legal to have different terms and conditions of service for people with different jobs, even if the jobs have a superficially similar job title. Its what actually consitiutes that job that counts, not just being "supervisor" or whatever.
Contacting your union might give you an answer backed up by reference to law.
This recently happened where I work (not about sick pay, though), and there isn't much I can do about it.
I am surprised that its the digging staff that get the sick pay, and not the other way around, though.
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Sparky - 12th March 2008
Let me get this clear, the office staff don't get fully waged sick pay but the site staff do?
Sick pay or not sick pay? - trowelfodder - 12th March 2008
It the digging staff who dont get sick pay!!!
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Sparky - 13th March 2008
Stop confusing the issue, Oxo!
Thats more like it. As stated before, its likely to be a contractual issue. It isn't morally right, though considering the people more at risk of injury (and possibly illness) are the site staff.
Maybe you should look into industrial action to seek similar rights to the people who take great risks with paper and pens...
Sick pay or not sick pay? - Oxbeast - 13th March 2008
Yes, my mistake, sorry. I misread the first sentence. I did expect it to be this way around. After all, its the office staff who decided what conditions to give people. What about staff who spend part of their time in the field and part of it in the office? I suppose that they count as "field"?
Sick pay or not sick pay? - trowelfodder - 13th March 2008
Its basically permanent staff have different sick pay rights than staff on fixed term and rolling contracts.