sick pay who pays

[muttley9050]

I think employment rights are generally a good thing but this situation can be seriously damaging to a small business. £88.45 for upto 28 weeks is nearly £2.5k plus the cost of a replacement worker. It should be reclaimable.

 

I feel the risk of this potential long term cost will just push employers to terminate employment as soon as someone gets sick.

 

That would land you in court for unfair dismissal!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

http://www.gov.uk/employers-sick-pay/overview

 

 

Interesting read that!

[Kenty]

If you are working under UK employment law then you need to speak to ACAS about this immediately.

 

 

My take on it would be if your employee has a contract with the other employer & sustained an injury while undertaking their duties for this employer then they are responsible for sick pay, however, if the injury was sustained outside of any contractual hours with either company then the main employer would be responsible for sick pay/ SSP.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

Surly this can be claimed back in expenses? Otherwise it is really going to cripple some small companies. It did say something in the gov. Laws about getting ssp off two companies. Does that mean possibly the cost can be split. It seems mad the government can just assume that any employer can just afforded to pay that out of their own pocket. When they are apparently trying to help out the little business.

Sorry to hear this from the original poster it must be a headache and a half.

[IVECOKID]

Employees can qualify for sick pay from more than one job.

 

They could also qualify in one job but be fit for work in another, eg if one job is physical work that they can’t do while ill but the other is office-based.

 

 

 

B][[/b]QUOTE=kernowstu;1470619]http://www.gov.uk/employers-sick-pay/overview

 

 

 

I cant believe that the above is correct has if You are unfit physically for one job but you can work office bound in another job, how the hell do they get into work then by Ambulance!! Getting in and out a car and walking up stairs is Physical lol .

On the other hand this could work to your advantage and they should be given office duties unless they pull the Health safety card out has a "risk to others".

 

I am glad I don't employ anyone .

 

 

Ste

[Marko]

Hence the need for an employment contract that explicitly prevents employees working elsewhere without the employer's consent.

 

If that (quite common) clause is in place and was not agreed then it is breach of contract and can be dealt with accordingly.

 

If it is in place but you were fully aware of the alternative work then, whether formally agreed or otherwise, you will need to pay up.

 

If it isn't in the contract then by default you are happy for the employee to work elsewhere and will need to take the consequences.

[eggsarascal]

Hence the need for an employment contract that explicitly prevents employees working elsewhere without the employer's consent.

 

If that (quite common) clause is in place and was not agreed then it is breach of contract and can be dealt with accordingly.

 

If it is in place but you were fully aware of the alternative work then, whether formally agreed or otherwise, you will need to pay up.

 

If it isn't in the contract then by default you are happy for the employee to work elsewhere and will need to take the consequences.

 

The idea that an employer can tell an employee that they can't work elsewhere in their own time stinks. Talk about keeping the great unwashed in check.

 

Mrs Egg is on the local council (unpaid). She still as to declare this to her company..... Bollix.

[LincolnSteve]

The idea that an employer can tell an employee that they can't work elsewhere in their own time stinks. Talk about keeping the great unwashed in check.

 

That's fine, but then the employee shouldn't be entitled to claim sick pay if he has an accident working for someone else. As it stands he is entitled to claim SSP as such the employer should be able to have a say on extra work. Can't have your cake and eat it.

 

I think employment rights are generally a good thing but this situation can be seriously damaging to a small business. £88.45 for upto 28 weeks is nearly £2.5k plus the cost of a replacement worker. It should be reclaimable.

 

As part of our insurance package we can claim when a member of staff is off sick. We get the money and as such can allocate it as we see fit - i.e. top up employee SSP or just use it to bring in a subbie. Not ideal but given HMRC have shafted us it's all we have

[eggsarascal]

That's fine, but then the employee shouldn't be entitled to claim sick pay if he has an accident working for someone else. As it stands he is entitled to claim SSP as such the employer should be able to have a say on extra work. Can't have your cake and eat it.

 

 

 

As part of our insurance package we can claim when a member of staff is off sick. We get the money and as such can allocate it as we see fit - i.e. top up employee SSP or just use it to bring in a subbie. Not ideal but given HMRC have shafted us it's all we have

 

I never said that the main employer should pay sick pay for an accident elsewhere. If I got injured on my own job my insurance would cover it, if I got injured on someone else's job I'd want paying sick pay, fair?

 

Can you not see where this is going?

 

There will be robots working production lines and driverless trains/cars before long, oh,hang on. Yes it is progress, at what cost?

[treequip]

I never said that the main employer should pay sick pay for an accident elsewhere.

 

 

But the point is they do have to pay