employee question

whelan1

hi there, have a lad on 3 day week, was full time before that, i pay tax etc, he claims dole the other days... asked him today to work back full time til end of january, he declined saying he's too busy on the other days, working elsewhere... so my dilema is why should i take on some one else for the other days ? will be very messy with 2 people working rather than 1.... afaik if someone has declined the offer of fulltime work while in receipt of sw they are not entitled to sw? is this true?

nothing

If he's working somewhere else on the other days, surely he's not entitled to any SW anyways?

whelan1

just wondering if i let him go the fact he turned down fulltime will that mean he is not entitled to sw fullstop!

Molloys Clondalkin

Im sure there is someone else out there op who would be more than happy to work what ever hours you give them.

Thats ridicoulous not wanting to go full time typical of some peoples attitudes in Ireland these days.:mad:

MyKeyG

Well one of the stipulations is that an individual must 'Be available and genuinely seeking work'. I'm sure your employee would be regarded as voluntarily falling short of this obligation.

Part-time or casual work
If you get part-time or casual work (up to and including 3 days per week), you may still be paid a proportion of your Jobseeker's Allowance. However, you must show that you are trying to get full-time employment.

Disqualification from Jobseeker's Allowance
You may be disqualified from getting Jobseeker's Allowance for 9 weeks if you:

Left work voluntarily and without just cause
Lost your job through misconduct
Refused an offer of suitable alternative employment or suitable training

It seems that your employee will indeed lose his payment in its entirety.

Jarren

OP

You need an employee full time until the end of January , right?

You are running a business,you offered him full time position,he refused

Get rid of him,find someone who will be willing to work for you full time

Sorry to sound harsh but but if he is not willing to commit .......

tenchi-fan

Why were his hours reduced in the first place, and what does his contract say?

If his contract says he must be available according to operational demand you are probably within your rights to fire him.

Just be careful, as part-time workers have the same rights as full-time.

whelan1

he doesnt have a contract, his hours where reduced as i didnt have the work and also when the usc etc came in last year i couldnt afford the full time wage, at the minute work is busy and income has improved

MyKeyG

whelan1 wrote: »

he doesnt have a contract, his hours where reduced as i didnt have the work and also when the usc etc came in last year i couldnt afford the full time wage, at the minute work is busy and income has improved

I don't think it matters in this case. I'd imagine he's obliged to take the extra hours if he intends to claim SW otherwise or at least present a reasonable explanation as to why he's refusing the hours.

whelan1

am going to have a chat with him tomorrow, no use in killing myself working when i could get someone else to help out ... will give him a few days to think about it... am i in the right?

daheff

OP- do you have proof hes claiming SW? Maybe he got another part time job to make up the hours you left him short


I dont think you'd have a leg to stand on if u fired him, seeing as you reduced his hours. I dont think hes legally required to increase his hours back to fulltime (unless you have a contract stating that...even then..)


best bet is to hire somebody else part time.

MyKeyG

Yes OP I'd be very careful about the advice to 'get rid of him'. In the absence of a contract stating otherwise you can't sack him for refusing to change from part time to full time. Legally the original agreement to work reduced hours could in itself be regarded as a binding contract. While it's not your fault the amount of work fluctuates it's not his either. He's not obliged to be at your beck and call when things begin to look up.

However if he is refusing the hours in favour of SW payment and you decide to report him then he will most certainly lose the payment.

Mrs OBumble

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yes OP I'd be very careful about the advice to 'get rid of him'. In the absence of a contract stating otherwise you can't sack him for refusing to change from part time to full time. Legally the original agreement to work reduced hours could in itself be regarded as a binding contract. While it's not your fault the amount of work fluctuates it's not his either. He's not obliged to be at your beck and call when things begin to look up.

However if he is refusing the hours in favour of SW payment and you decide to report him then he will most certainly lose the payment.

OP, I'd agree with this.

You need to consult your lawyer - we cannot give you legal advice here, and "the people on boards.ie said" will not stand up if you dismiss him unjustifiably and he takes you to court over it.

There's also the small matter that it's illegal for him not to have a contract ... and if it's not written, one is implied.

TBH, would it really be too messy to have two part-time people? Surely they could provide cover for each other for sickness and annual leave, and it reduces the risk of your only skilled employee getting annoyed an resigning on you.

whelan1

it would be very messy to have 2 people , i have a farm, so continuity is essential....