Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Payment for attending an on-the-job first aid course
762 views
Skip to first unread message
Humbug
Oct 2, 2011, 7:05:03 PM10/2/11
to
My daughter works for one of Britain's largest supermarket chains.
She had served as a first-aider in a previous employment.
Soon after joining, she volunteered to become a first-aider, and was
sent on a three-day course which is recognised by both HSE and the
supermarket's insurers.
She had served as a first-aider in a previous employment.
Soon after joining, she volunteered to become a first-aider, and was
sent on a three-day course which is recognised by both HSE and the
supermarket's insurers.
She was paid for her time attending the course, and subsequently
received a small extra wage supplement.
She has provided first-aid for both members of staff and customers on
several occasions.
The certificate expires after three years, and can be extended by
attending a one-day refresher course.
My daughter informed her (then) manager when she noticed that her
certificate was about to expire, but he took no action.
The wage supplement as a first-aider was removed immediately when the
certificate expired.
After her certificate had expired, she heard a call on the public
address system in the supermarket while she was at work, asking for a
first aider.
She did not respond immediately, because she knew that her certificate
had expired.
There were two further appeals, and eventually she went to give
advice, since there was evidently no qualified first-aider on the
premises at that time.
The supermarket has recently been expanded from "Superstore" status to
"Extra", and her new manager seems to have recognised the shortfall in
qualified first-aiders.
She attended a three-day course along with six other staff from her
own branch, and two from another.
The course was held in a training room at the branch where she
normally works.
The first day was a day when she would normally have been scheduled to
work. The other two were days off.
The manager says that she will not be paid at all for attending the
course.
He is reported as saying that he has paid about £100 (to the trainer)
for each person attending the course, and that is all he should have
to pay.
Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
requirement.
All that I've been able to find is that the Working Hours Directive
states that training is included in working hours which cannot be
exceeded, but that such hours do not necessarily attract overtime
payment.
So far I have not seen anything that says that an employer *must* pay
the employee for their time for such training.
OTOH, I have found that the supermarket could be prosecuted if they do
not provide "adequate" first-aid cover - but there is no clear
definition as to what is "adequate".
Our experience is that on one occasion there was not a single
qualified first-aider on site.
Is she actually entitled to be paid for the course which she
volunteered for?
If not, why not!
Dr Zoidberg
Oct 3, 2011, 2:50:02 AM10/3/11
to
"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
news:6pqh87p6skhfc7dte...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
> She attended a three-day course along with six other staff from her
> own branch, and two from another.
> The course was held in a training room at the branch where she
> normally works.
>
> The first day was a day when she would normally have been scheduled to
> work. The other two were days off.
>
> The manager says that she will not be paid at all for attending the
> course.
> He is reported as saying that he has paid about £100 (to the trainer)
> for each person attending the course, and that is all he should have
> to pay.
He is talking nonsense
> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
> requirement.
Why the employer is sending her on the course is irrellevant - they sent her
on a course as part of her job and should pay her for the time worked.
--
Alex
Pedt
Oct 3, 2011, 6:35:02 AM10/3/11
to
In message <j6blq0$o1m$1...@dont-email.me>, at 07:50:02 on Mon, 3 Oct 2011,
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>
>> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
>> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
>> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
>> requirement.
>
>Why the employer is sending her on the course is irrellevant - they
>sent her on a course as part of her job and should pay her for the time
>worked.
I'd agree, especially as the daughter offered when there was the request
made for people willing to be first aiders for the store - not something
she did off her own bat.
It might well be worth the OP's daughter offering to take time off in
lieu. Keeps her boss happy as he hasn't got to be seen to pay out more
money and she gets a couple of days free (hopefully negotiated as to
when she would like them (maybe offer a suggestion of dates?) - and it
might stand her in good stead in the future that she may be willing to
compromise given the uncertain jobs situation at the moment.
--
Pedt
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>
>> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
>> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
>> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
>> requirement.
>
>Why the employer is sending her on the course is irrellevant - they
>sent her on a course as part of her job and should pay her for the time
>worked.
made for people willing to be first aiders for the store - not something
she did off her own bat.
It might well be worth the OP's daughter offering to take time off in
lieu. Keeps her boss happy as he hasn't got to be seen to pay out more
money and she gets a couple of days free (hopefully negotiated as to
when she would like them (maybe offer a suggestion of dates?) - and it
might stand her in good stead in the future that she may be willing to
compromise given the uncertain jobs situation at the moment.
--
Pedt
Peter Crosland
Oct 3, 2011, 7:00:07 AM10/3/11
to
Of course she is fully entitled to be paid. The manager needs a big kick up
the backside. I suggest she lodges a complaint under the company's grievance
procedure without delay.
Peter Crosland
Periander
Oct 3, 2011, 10:20:03 AM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 12:05 am, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
...
Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
paid end of story.
(Spoken as a person who has at times to juggle budgets to send his own
staff away for training)
(Also spoken as a person who in his spare time is paid to deliver
specialist training courses for employers and employees).
No doubt someone will be along shortly to quote Act and Section but
the manager appears to be talking from his posterior ... having said
all that and for the sake of argument, it may be argued that her lost
wages for the days spent being trained are catered for via the wage/
salary uplift she receives after being trained with the upshot that 3
years worth of salary uplift leaves her in profit. Just a
thought ... :-)
---
Periander
...
Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
paid end of story.
(Spoken as a person who has at times to juggle budgets to send his own
staff away for training)
(Also spoken as a person who in his spare time is paid to deliver
specialist training courses for employers and employees).
No doubt someone will be along shortly to quote Act and Section but
the manager appears to be talking from his posterior ... having said
all that and for the sake of argument, it may be argued that her lost
wages for the days spent being trained are catered for via the wage/
salary uplift she receives after being trained with the upshot that 3
years worth of salary uplift leaves her in profit. Just a
thought ... :-)
---
Periander
Periander
Oct 3, 2011, 10:25:02 AM10/3/11
to
> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
> requirement.
>
> All that I've been able to find is that the Working Hours Directive
> states that training is included in working hours which cannot be
> exceeded, but that such hours do not necessarily attract overtime
> payment.
Should have added to my previous post, the above relates to mandatory
> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
> requirement.
>
> All that I've been able to find is that the Working Hours Directive
> states that training is included in working hours which cannot be
> exceeded, but that such hours do not necessarily attract overtime
> payment.
training, so for instance working in a supermarket most staff should
be trained to lift, move, carry goods - "manual handling" it's usually
called; so training for staff in this instance being mandatory it has
to be carried out in job time - or at least at job expense.
Being a first aider though ... if there's nothing in the person's job
description that says "... and you shall also be required to perform
the role of first aider" then any first aid training for that person
is optional and the direction you refer to doesn't apply. Yes theer
mus be first aiders present and available but there's nothing to say
who those persons should be.
Hope that makes sense.
---
Periander
Flop
Oct 3, 2011, 2:40:02 PM10/3/11
to
....and throw in her concerns about H&S [always a good bet - especially
if it is in writing]
Flop
steve robinson
Oct 3, 2011, 4:20:02 PM10/3/11
to
> > pay the employee for their time for such training.
> >
> > OTOH, I have found that the supermarket could be prosecuted if
> > they do not provide "adequate" first-aid cover - but there is no
> > clear definition as to what is "adequate".
> > Our experience is that on one occasion there was not a single
> > qualified first-aider on site.
> >
> > Is she actually entitled to be paid for the course which she
> > volunteered for?
> >
> > If not, why not!
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > Of course she is fully entitled to be paid. The manager needs a
> > big kick up the backside. I suggest she lodges a complaint under
> > the company's grievance procedure without delay.
> >
> > Peter Crosland
> >
> >
> excellent advice...
>
> ....and throw in her concerns about H&S [always a good bet -
> especially if it is in writing]
>
> Flop
Not the best time to get a little red tick against your name, if
> >
> > OTOH, I have found that the supermarket could be prosecuted if
> > they do not provide "adequate" first-aid cover - but there is no
> > clear definition as to what is "adequate".
> > Our experience is that on one occasion there was not a single
> > qualified first-aider on site.
> >
> > Is she actually entitled to be paid for the course which she
> > volunteered for?
> >
> > If not, why not!
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > Of course she is fully entitled to be paid. The manager needs a
> > big kick up the backside. I suggest she lodges a complaint under
> > the company's grievance procedure without delay.
> >
> > Peter Crosland
> >
> >
> excellent advice...
>
> ....and throw in her concerns about H&S [always a good bet -
> especially if it is in writing]
>
> Flop
there is not a genuine HS problem then dont create one
BartC
Oct 4, 2011, 7:45:03 PM10/4/11
to
"Periander" <periander....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8d81e85e-c84a-4d4e...@e9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 12:05 am, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
> request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
> paid end of story.
And to her benefit; presumably knowledge of first-aid can sometimes be of
>
> ...
>
> Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
> request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
> paid end of story.
use outside of work? (What happens if she changes jobs after one year; the
employer has then paid for training that will benefit someone else!)
Some people attend first-aid courses for themselves, and sometimes have to
pay money for them, but here the training is free to the employee ("free
first-aid-at-work courses"; does someone really expect to profit from them?)
But given that she expects to be paid for her time, at what rate should that
be? Her normal rate when she's doing her job, minimum wage, or should it be
overtime?!
--
Bartc
Humbug
Oct 4, 2011, 7:35:02 PM10/4/11
to
All that I was able to find was
The Working Time Regulations 1998
# 1998 No. 1833
# PART I
# Regulation 2
which says:
“working time”, in relation to a worker, means—
(a) any period during which he is working, at his employer’s disposal
and carrying out his activity or duties,
(b) any period during which he is receiving relevant training ...
However, the Working Time Regulations appear to be more concerned with
the number of hours worked, rather than whether those hours should be
paid for.
To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
swap with another member of staff in the same department.
Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
--
Humbug
Chris R
Oct 5, 2011, 4:15:13 AM10/5/11
to
>
>
> "Humbug" wrote in message
> news:1j4n87dgp95qg251j...@4ax.com...
>
> (a) any period during which he is working, at his employer's disposal
> and carrying out his activity or duties,
>
> (b) any period during which he is receiving relevant training ...
>
> However, the Working Time Regulations appear to be more concerned with
> the number of hours worked, rather than whether those hours should be
> paid for.
>
> To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
> release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
> swap with another member of staff in the same department.
> Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
>
I doubt you will find specific legislation, unless you mount a minimum wage
> (a) any period during which he is working, at his employer's disposal
> and carrying out his activity or duties,
>
> (b) any period during which he is receiving relevant training ...
>
> However, the Working Time Regulations appear to be more concerned with
> the number of hours worked, rather than whether those hours should be
> paid for.
>
> To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
> release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
> swap with another member of staff in the same department.
> Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
>
argument. Otherwise it's a question of interpretation of the contract of
employment. It would be a very unusual contract that specifically excluded
training time from payment. Otherwise, training provided by the employer is
working just like any other form of work.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Dr Zoidberg
Oct 5, 2011, 5:40:02 AM10/5/11
to
"BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:j6g5lr$8k5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Periander" <periander....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:8d81e85e-c84a-4d4e...@e9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 3, 12:05 am, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
>> request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
>> paid end of story.
>
> And to her benefit; presumably knowledge of first-aid can sometimes be of
> use outside of work? (What happens if she changes jobs after one year; the
> employer has then paid for training that will benefit someone else!)
You could make that argument about any skills she learns at work.
>
> "Periander" <periander....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:8d81e85e-c84a-4d4e...@e9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 3, 12:05 am, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Rollocks, she's been sent on the course by her employer, at the
>> request of her employer, ultimately to her employer's benefit she gets
>> paid end of story.
>
> And to her benefit; presumably knowledge of first-aid can sometimes be of
> use outside of work? (What happens if she changes jobs after one year; the
> employer has then paid for training that will benefit someone else!)
> But given that she expects to be paid for her time, at what rate should
> that
> be? Her normal rate when she's doing her job, minimum wage, or should it
> be
> overtime?!
time just like her normal activities.
--
Alex
Roland Perry
Oct 5, 2011, 6:10:03 AM10/5/11
to
In message <j6h8l8$jvc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:40:02 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011,
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>At whatever rate her contract says she should be paid, as this is
>working time just like her normal activities.
It's probably silent about this particular form of training. Unless
there's a "no overtime" clause, and using the theory below this would
have been overtime.
Sounds to me as if the employer was willing to pay for the training as
long as she did it in her own time (in particular, not even "time off
without pay") on account of the re-arranging shifts issue. And by
attending on two days off.
The store may argue that when she did in fact rearrange the shifts, and
turnedup voluntarily on the days off, this should have been obvious; but
perhaps they could have explained it better.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>At whatever rate her contract says she should be paid, as this is
>working time just like her normal activities.
there's a "no overtime" clause, and using the theory below this would
have been overtime.
Sounds to me as if the employer was willing to pay for the training as
long as she did it in her own time (in particular, not even "time off
without pay") on account of the re-arranging shifts issue. And by
attending on two days off.
The store may argue that when she did in fact rearrange the shifts, and
turnedup voluntarily on the days off, this should have been obvious; but
perhaps they could have explained it better.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Oct 5, 2011, 7:10:05 AM10/5/11
to
"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
news:1j4n87dgp95qg251j...@4ax.com...
"working time", in relation to a worker, means-
(a) any period during which he is working, at his employer's disposal
and carrying out his activity or duties,
(b) any period during which he is receiving relevant training ...
However, the Working Time Regulations appear to be more concerned with
the number of hours worked, rather than whether those hours should be
paid for.
To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
swap with another member of staff in the same department.
Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
It makes no difference. She cannot be forced to take leave to do paid work.
As I said before she should, without delay, lodge a formal complain under
the company's procedure. Delay could mean she loses her rights.
Peter Crosland
news:1j4n87dgp95qg251j...@4ax.com...
(a) any period during which he is working, at his employer's disposal
and carrying out his activity or duties,
(b) any period during which he is receiving relevant training ...
However, the Working Time Regulations appear to be more concerned with
the number of hours worked, rather than whether those hours should be
paid for.
To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
swap with another member of staff in the same department.
Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
It makes no difference. She cannot be forced to take leave to do paid work.
As I said before she should, without delay, lodge a formal complain under
the company's procedure. Delay could mean she loses her rights.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
Oct 5, 2011, 7:25:02 AM10/5/11
to
In message <NYidnZpzPOLFpxHT...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:10:05 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>As I said before she should, without delay, lodge a formal complain under
>the company's procedure. Delay could mean she loses her rights.
I think she's very likely to end up with a bloody nose.
--
Roland Perry
12:10:05 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>It makes no difference. She cannot be forced to take leave to do paid work.
She wasn't forced to take the course, nor is it "work".
>As I said before she should, without delay, lodge a formal complain under
>the company's procedure. Delay could mean she loses her rights.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Oct 5, 2011, 7:55:03 AM10/5/11
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2JNkQCPU...@perry.co.uk...
The employee has been required to attend the course by her manager and to
arrange this by swapping time off with another employee. That makes it very
clear that it is a requirement of her employment and is work that she is
legally entitled to be paid for at the minimum wage if not her normal rate.
As such she has a cast iron case for complaint and any attempt by the
employer to penalise her in any way would be actionable at an employment
tribunal if need be. In fact from what the OP has said it seems to be a
classic case of a rogue manager trying to pull a fast one.
Peter Crosland
news:2JNkQCPU...@perry.co.uk...
arrange this by swapping time off with another employee. That makes it very
clear that it is a requirement of her employment and is work that she is
legally entitled to be paid for at the minimum wage if not her normal rate.
As such she has a cast iron case for complaint and any attempt by the
employer to penalise her in any way would be actionable at an employment
tribunal if need be. In fact from what the OP has said it seems to be a
classic case of a rogue manager trying to pull a fast one.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
Oct 5, 2011, 8:25:02 AM10/5/11
to
In message <66edndXheKsi2RHT...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:55:03 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
store realising it needs some volunteers for the role.
--
Roland Perry
12:55:03 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>The employee has been required to attend the course by her manager
That's not the position described by the OP. The closest it gets is the
store realising it needs some volunteers for the role.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Dr Zoidberg
Oct 5, 2011, 11:00:03 AM10/5/11
to
> In message <NYidnZpzPOLFpxHT...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 12:10:05 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>It makes no difference. She cannot be forced to take leave to do paid
>>work.
>
> She wasn't forced to take the course,
So?
> 12:10:05 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>It makes no difference. She cannot be forced to take leave to do paid
>>work.
>
> She wasn't forced to take the course,
There are plenty of things your employer can ask you to do during the course
of your employment that aren't mandatory.
> nor is it "work".
--
Alex
Roland Perry
Oct 5, 2011, 11:20:02 AM10/5/11
to
In message <j6hrbo$bfb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:00:03 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011,
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>> She wasn't forced to take the course,
>
>So?
>There are plenty of things your employer can ask you to do during the
>course of your employment that aren't mandatory.
The employer didn't ask her, she asked the employer.
>> nor is it "work".
>
>It very much is work.
Not paid work, if she's a volunteer.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>> She wasn't forced to take the course,
>
>So?
>There are plenty of things your employer can ask you to do during the
>course of your employment that aren't mandatory.
>> nor is it "work".
>
>It very much is work.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Oct 5, 2011, 12:40:03 PM10/5/11
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$tamp3MK...@perry.co.uk...
skills that she uses during the course of her work. As in the case cited by
the OP she does her normal works but, as and when required, is called upon
to use her specialist skills. Choosing to acquire and maintain that skill
may be voluntary but it does not mean that is it is not work that should be
paid for. In many cases an employer might have to employ, and therefore pay
much more for, a nurse or similar to provide adequate first aid cover.
Thousands of people use these skills in the course of their employment and
most, if not all, large employers recognise the need for this as a vital
part of meeting their Health and Safety obligations. What seems to have
happened in this case is a manager has decided to save a few pounds off his
budget. I have no doubt his employers will take a very dim view of his
cavalier attitude to H&S once they find out about it.
Peter Crosland
BartC
Oct 5, 2011, 11:10:18 AM10/5/11
to
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j6hrbo$bfb$1...@dont-email.me...
you reckon he ought to be paid for a 3-day course?
I make it in six figures...
--
Bartc
Roland Perry
Oct 5, 2011, 1:15:02 PM10/5/11
to
In message <T9ednaoPF9yGFRHT...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:40:03 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
call, and they pay trained people extra. They also provide the training
free. But there's no obligation on specific individuals to do the
training.
If they can find enough first aiders on that basis, they'll satisfy the
HSE requirements.
--
Roland Perry
17:40:03 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>You have totally missed the point. She was being trained in the first aid
>skills that she uses during the course of her work.
The shop may have an obligation to have some trained first aiders on
>skills that she uses during the course of her work.
call, and they pay trained people extra. They also provide the training
free. But there's no obligation on specific individuals to do the
training.
If they can find enough first aiders on that basis, they'll satisfy the
HSE requirements.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
Oct 5, 2011, 1:50:01 PM10/5/11
to
On 2011-10-04, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
> To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
> release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
> swap with another member of staff in the same department.
> Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
She might well be better off suggesting that her manager consult
> To complicate matters further, her departmental manager would only
> release her from her normal duties if she personally arranged a shift
> swap with another member of staff in the same department.
> Her absence would not have been covered if she had taken leave.
with head office as to what the company's policy is in this situation.
Humbug
Oct 6, 2011, 9:25:02 PM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:10:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
I did find something somewhere in working hours regulations which says
that training *doesn't* attract overtime pay, which suggests that it
ought to be paid at standard rate.
There is a precedent, in that she was paid for her time when she first
did the course three years ago.
However, it seems as though it's at the manager's discretion,and this
particular employer changes its managers more frequently than its
socks.
We have considerable experience of promises made by this company's
managers which evaporate within weeks.
BTDT myself - I have resigned from both a (then) national energy
providing company and a British corporation involved in broadcasting
because of broken promises from management. This employer is just a
bit quicker :-(
My daughter's employer has been delinquent in not providing sufficient
first-aiders as required by HSE, but has so far escaped prosecution.
Her first concern was that there ought to be first-aiders in her place
of work.
She enjoyed her time on the course, and was able to contribute by
demonstrating the use of an Epipen and an asthmatic inhaler, which the
instructor could not.
She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham wolud be proud of her.
As am I.
--
Humbug
wrote:
that training *doesn't* attract overtime pay, which suggests that it
ought to be paid at standard rate.
There is a precedent, in that she was paid for her time when she first
did the course three years ago.
However, it seems as though it's at the manager's discretion,and this
particular employer changes its managers more frequently than its
socks.
We have considerable experience of promises made by this company's
managers which evaporate within weeks.
BTDT myself - I have resigned from both a (then) national energy
providing company and a British corporation involved in broadcasting
because of broken promises from management. This employer is just a
bit quicker :-(
My daughter's employer has been delinquent in not providing sufficient
first-aiders as required by HSE, but has so far escaped prosecution.
Her first concern was that there ought to be first-aiders in her place
of work.
She enjoyed her time on the course, and was able to contribute by
demonstrating the use of an Epipen and an asthmatic inhaler, which the
instructor could not.
She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham wolud be proud of her.
As am I.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Oct 7, 2011, 4:30:03 AM10/7/11
to
In message <78fs871akftv0ckdu...@4ax.com>, at 02:25:02 on
Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
These are two separate issues, and shouldn't be confused. In particular
while not excusing any alleged laxity, is this an offence which is never
in practice prosecuted (like firms who allow people to wedge open fire
doors).
And talking of rarely-prosecuted offences, am I right in thinking that a
pricing regulation is breached if I take an item to a checkout and they
try to charge more than the amount marked on the shelf. This happened to
me yesterday - a single item I was buying marked 79p came up 81p at the
till; I said "it's marked as 79p" and the girl said "yes, I expect it
is" and immediately knocked off 2p.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
while not excusing any alleged laxity, is this an offence which is never
in practice prosecuted (like firms who allow people to wedge open fire
doors).
And talking of rarely-prosecuted offences, am I right in thinking that a
pricing regulation is breached if I take an item to a checkout and they
try to charge more than the amount marked on the shelf. This happened to
me yesterday - a single item I was buying marked 79p came up 81p at the
till; I said "it's marked as 79p" and the girl said "yes, I expect it
is" and immediately knocked off 2p.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Oct 7, 2011, 9:00:04 AM10/7/11
to
qOn Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:05:03 +0100, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
> requirement.
Refer to http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg345.pdf
>
> Now, my daughter has asked me if her employer is required to pay her
> for attending training which is not actually part of her normal work,
> but is required for the employer to comply with a statutory
> requirement.
This is mainly about induction training, but I think it covers first
aid too. It's substantially irrelevant that she volunteered to be a
first aider - she volunteered to be appointed, but she was still
appointed as a first aider by her employer, as a part of her
employment.
HASWA 1974 requires an employer to provide whatever information,
instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure,
sfarp, the health and safety at work of employees. The HSE leaflet
makes it clear that training is needed, that it must be provided at no
cost to the employee and in working hours.
The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and Safety
at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees receiving
training "on their being exposed to new or increased risks" (such as
those arising from administering first aid - infection control, for
example) "because of - ... their being transferred or given a change
of responsibilities" (such as becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical
comments are mine).
Regulation 13 goes on "The training ...[shall]... take place during
working hours".
> So far I have not seen anything that says that an employer *must* pay
> the employee for their time for such training.
INDG345 is what you want. There's a first aid ACOP you can download
from HSE web site, which has recommendations, but they aren't law. It
says first aiders must have been on an official course (or be
qualified via something better than a first aid course), but it
doesn't say you need to be paid when you go on the course (I think it
takes that as obviously the case).
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith
Oct 7, 2011, 9:05:02 AM10/7/11
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:30:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <78fs871akftv0ckdu...@4ax.com>, at 02:25:02 on
> Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>
> >She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
>
> These are two separate issues, and shouldn't be confused. In
> particular while not excusing any alleged laxity, is this an
> offence which is never in practice prosecuted (like firms who allow
> people to wedge open fire doors).
Tesco just got fined £119,000 for doing that (among other things,
> In message <78fs871akftv0ckdu...@4ax.com>, at 02:25:02 on
> Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>
> >She won't be paid, and her employer won't be prosecuted.
>
> These are two separate issues, and shouldn't be confused. In
> particular while not excusing any alleged laxity, is this an
> offence which is never in practice prosecuted (like firms who allow
> people to wedge open fire doors).
admittedly).
Roland Perry
Oct 7, 2011, 11:00:03 AM10/7/11
to
In message <slrnj8ttr...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 14:00:04
on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their deployment of
that qualification at work.
I'm sure other parts of the store require people who have driving
licences, and would relate to making sure they were safe drivers in the
store environment. That wouldn't extend to training them to drive in the
first place (unless there was a specific scheme such as some bus
companies run for PSV).
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and Safety
>at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees receiving
>training "on their being exposed to new or increased risks" (such as
>those arising from administering first aid - infection control, for
>example) "because of - ... their being transferred or given a change
>of responsibilities" (such as becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical
>comments are mine).
But wouldn't those bits of training be *after* the person has achieved
>at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees receiving
>training "on their being exposed to new or increased risks" (such as
>those arising from administering first aid - infection control, for
>example) "because of - ... their being transferred or given a change
>of responsibilities" (such as becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical
>comments are mine).
the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their deployment of
that qualification at work.
I'm sure other parts of the store require people who have driving
licences, and would relate to making sure they were safe drivers in the
store environment. That wouldn't extend to training them to drive in the
first place (unless there was a specific scheme such as some bus
companies run for PSV).
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Oct 7, 2011, 11:55:02 AM10/7/11
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:00:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnj8ttr...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 14:00:04
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and
> >Safety at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees
> >receiving training "on their being exposed to new or increased
> >risks" (such as those arising from administering first aid -
> >infection control, for example) "because of - ... their being
> >transferred or given a change of responsibilities" (such as
> >becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical comments are mine).
>
> But wouldn't those bits of training be *after* the person has
> achieved the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their
> deployment of that qualification at work.
No. In general, you get induction training on how to do your job
> In message <slrnj8ttr...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 14:00:04
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and
> >Safety at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees
> >receiving training "on their being exposed to new or increased
> >risks" (such as those arising from administering first aid -
> >infection control, for example) "because of - ... their being
> >transferred or given a change of responsibilities" (such as
> >becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical comments are mine).
>
> But wouldn't those bits of training be *after* the person has
> achieved the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their
> deployment of that qualification at work.
safely before you start doing it. That induction training is in
company time. You get your induction on day one, before starting
work. HASWA applies, which says employees need to have the training
required to do their job safely, and section 9 (I think) says employer
pays for it.
In the case of first aid the ACOP also applies, and that mandates the
level of training if the person is to fulfil the role of first aider.
If you kill a new employee, 'we were going to tell him how to avoid
getting killed next week' would not be a very good defence to rely
upon, in my opinion.
> I'm sure other parts of the store require people who have driving
> licences, and would relate to making sure they were safe drivers in
> the store environment. That wouldn't extend to training them to
> drive in the first place (unless there was a specific scheme such
> as some bus companies run for PSV).
very definitely proves the point.
If you decided to appoint an employee to drive a motor vehicle and
they didn't have a driving licence you most certainly would need to
train them to drive. If you failed to do so you would be in serious
breach of HASWA. You WOULD be expected to train them to drive in the
first place if you gave them a job and they couldn't do so already.
If they already have a driving licence you don't need to, but in the
FAW case, if they already have a FAW qualification you don't need to
retrain them either. It is the same situation.
Roland Perry
Oct 7, 2011, 12:15:03 PM10/7/11
to
In message <slrnj8u84...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:55:02
>In the case of first aid the ACOP also applies, and that mandates the
>level of training if the person is to fulfil the role of first aider.
And why can't a person get the First Aider training in their own time?
Even if the training is at the company's expense.
>If you kill a new employee, 'we were going to tell him how to avoid
>getting killed next week' would not be a very good defence to rely
>upon, in my opinion.
But this is not a new employee.
>> I'm sure other parts of the store require people who have driving
>> licences, and would relate to making sure they were safe drivers in
>> the store environment. That wouldn't extend to training them to
>> drive in the first place (unless there was a specific scheme such
>> as some bus companies run for PSV).
>
>I think you need to think that analogy through, because actually it
>very definitely proves the point.
>
>If you decided to appoint an employee to drive a motor vehicle and
>they didn't have a driving licence you most certainly would need to
>train them to drive. If you failed to do so you would be in serious
>breach of HASWA. You WOULD be expected to train them to drive in the
>first place if you gave them a job and they couldn't do so already.
But you don't need to train all your store staff in First Aid, just a
small subset. If there are no volunteers then maybe you would need to
press-gang some onto the course (and pay them while they were trained).
But if there are volunteers for the FA training (just like most jobs for
drivers are for people who volunteered to get their driving licence at
their own expense) then all you need to pay for is the course to induct
a trained First Aider into your store. Which is likely a very small
task.
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>> >The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and
>> >Safety at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees
>> >receiving training "on their being exposed to new or increased
>> >risks" (such as those arising from administering first aid -
>> >infection control, for example) "because of - ... their being
>> >transferred or given a change of responsibilities" (such as
>> >becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical comments are mine).
>>
>> But wouldn't those bits of training be *after* the person has
>> achieved the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their
>> deployment of that qualification at work.
>
>No. In general, you get induction training on how to do your job
>safely before you start doing it. That induction training is in
>company time. You get your induction on day one, before starting
>work. HASWA applies, which says employees need to have the training
>required to do their job safely, and section 9 (I think) says employer
>pays for it.
The OP's friend's induction training was years ago.
>> >The detail requirement is probably the Management of Health and
>> >Safety at Work Regulations 1999 regulation 13 which has employees
>> >receiving training "on their being exposed to new or increased
>> >risks" (such as those arising from administering first aid -
>> >infection control, for example) "because of - ... their being
>> >transferred or given a change of responsibilities" (such as
>> >becoming a first aider). (Parenthetical comments are mine).
>>
>> But wouldn't those bits of training be *after* the person has
>> achieved the basic first aider qualification, ie relating to their
>> deployment of that qualification at work.
>
>No. In general, you get induction training on how to do your job
>safely before you start doing it. That induction training is in
>company time. You get your induction on day one, before starting
>work. HASWA applies, which says employees need to have the training
>required to do their job safely, and section 9 (I think) says employer
>pays for it.
>In the case of first aid the ACOP also applies, and that mandates the
>level of training if the person is to fulfil the role of first aider.
Even if the training is at the company's expense.
>If you kill a new employee, 'we were going to tell him how to avoid
>getting killed next week' would not be a very good defence to rely
>upon, in my opinion.
>> I'm sure other parts of the store require people who have driving
>> licences, and would relate to making sure they were safe drivers in
>> the store environment. That wouldn't extend to training them to
>> drive in the first place (unless there was a specific scheme such
>> as some bus companies run for PSV).
>
>I think you need to think that analogy through, because actually it
>very definitely proves the point.
>
>If you decided to appoint an employee to drive a motor vehicle and
>they didn't have a driving licence you most certainly would need to
>train them to drive. If you failed to do so you would be in serious
>breach of HASWA. You WOULD be expected to train them to drive in the
>first place if you gave them a job and they couldn't do so already.
small subset. If there are no volunteers then maybe you would need to
press-gang some onto the course (and pay them while they were trained).
But if there are volunteers for the FA training (just like most jobs for
drivers are for people who volunteered to get their driving licence at
their own expense) then all you need to pay for is the course to induct
a trained First Aider into your store. Which is likely a very small
task.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Oct 7, 2011, 6:00:05 PM10/7/11
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:15:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnj8u84...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:55:02
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> In message <slrnj8u84...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:55:02
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >If you decided to appoint an employee to drive a motor vehicle and
> >they didn't have a driving licence you most certainly would need to
> >train them to drive. If you failed to do so you would be in serious
> >breach of HASWA. You WOULD be expected to train them to drive in the
> >first place if you gave them a job and they couldn't do so already.
>
> But you don't need to train all your store staff in First Aid, just a
> small subset.
Irrelevant. This particular employee was appointed by the company to
> >they didn't have a driving licence you most certainly would need to
> >train them to drive. If you failed to do so you would be in serious
> >breach of HASWA. You WOULD be expected to train them to drive in the
> >first place if you gave them a job and they couldn't do so already.
>
> But you don't need to train all your store staff in First Aid, just a
> small subset.
fulfil the role of first-aider. The training mandated by law for
that role must be completed in work time. That health and safety
training is carried out in working time is explicit in the
legislation.
> If there are no volunteers then maybe you would need to
> press-gang some onto the course (and pay them while they were trained).
company to fulfil the role of first-aider. That's a company
decision. It's irrelevant whether there were more volunteers than
needed, fewer volunteers than needed, or no volunteers at all.
> But if there are volunteers for the FA training (just like most
> jobs for drivers are for people who volunteered to get their
> driving licence at their own expense) then all you need to pay for
> is the course to induct a trained First Aider into your store.
discussion. This was not a case of a person volunteering to get a
first aid qualification in their own time and then provide the
benefit to their employer.
Roland Perry
Oct 8, 2011, 3:25:02 AM10/8/11
to
In message <slrnj8ute...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 23:00:05
(ie had her wage supplement reinstated).
Because of the "shift-swap" issue it's clear the management were
requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
days when she was on vacation.
It's perfectly reasonable to categorise this training as something then
employer was providing free to the employee so she could regain her
certificate. Whether they re-appoint her later is another matter.
On the other hand, if she'd been sent on the one day refresher course
before the certificate expired and while still getting the wage
supplement, I'd agree with you.
--
Roland Perry
>This particular employee was appointed by the company to
>fulfil the role of first-aider.
It's not clear from the OP's description whether she's been re-appointed
>fulfil the role of first-aider.
(ie had her wage supplement reinstated).
Because of the "shift-swap" issue it's clear the management were
requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
days when she was on vacation.
It's perfectly reasonable to categorise this training as something then
employer was providing free to the employee so she could regain her
certificate. Whether they re-appoint her later is another matter.
On the other hand, if she'd been sent on the one day refresher course
before the certificate expired and while still getting the wage
supplement, I'd agree with you.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Oct 8, 2011, 4:30:03 AM10/8/11
to
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:25:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnj8ute...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 23:00:05
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> In message <slrnj8ute...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 23:00:05
> on Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> Because of the "shift-swap" issue it's clear the management were
> requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
> days when she was on vacation.
> requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
> days when she was on vacation.
The HSE guidance specifically refers to shift workers and says that
H&S training is carried out in work time, which may require special
arrangements for shift workers.
Roland Perry
Oct 8, 2011, 5:05:02 AM10/8/11
to
In message <slrnj902c...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 09:30:03
on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>> Because of the "shift-swap" issue it's clear the management were
>> requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
>> days when she was on vacation.
>
>The HSE guidance specifically refers to shift workers and says that
>H&S training is carried out in work time, which may require special
>arrangements for shift workers.
on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>> Because of the "shift-swap" issue it's clear the management were
>> requiring her to take that day's course in her own time, plus the two
>> days when she was on vacation.
>
>The HSE guidance specifically refers to shift workers and says that
>H&S training is carried out in work time, which may require special
>arrangements for shift workers.
But this lady wasn't a worker, because of the shift-swap she was doing
it in her own time.
But if she'd had to switch her shift so it co-incided with the course
(rather than so it didn't clash with the course) I'd agree with you.
--
Roland Perry
Humbug
Oct 8, 2011, 9:05:02 PM10/8/11
to
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:30:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Standard practice is that if the marked price and the price at the
till do not match, the lower price is charged.
It can actually work either way.
--
Humbug
wrote:
till do not match, the lower price is charged.
It can actually work either way.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Oct 9, 2011, 8:40:02 AM10/9/11
to
In message <ffs1971nduiik6n4c...@4ax.com>, at 02:05:02 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>Standard practice is that if the marked price and the price at the
>till do not match, the lower price is charged.
>
>It can actually work either way.
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>Standard practice is that if the marked price and the price at the
>till do not match, the lower price is charged.
>
>It can actually work either way.
But you have to be alert. I don't know if it's just me, but I seem to
see this kind of pricing error much more often than in years gone by.
As well as tills ignoring "£3 each, two for £5" types of offer.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages