Can my employer kick me out of my job

monkeysnapper

Basically I come from a photographic background. I got made redundant from my job managing a photoshop that was closed down in feb.

I since got a job working for a German retail supermarket but because I have all my photographic gear , ie studio lights gear, backdrops, I've been going out and doing jobs on the side and I've been making a killing if I'm honest.

I'm finding that the job suits me because I'm working early mornings some days and evening others , so I can fit this in quite easly.

I would like to do this legally as I'm working in people's homes and in schools soon.

Can my boss legally stop me doing this, plus are any of ye people out there working in jobs and doing stuff on the side legally that's not a conflict of interest from your job.
Thanks

humbert

Assuming it's not their gear and you're not working as a representative of that company I can't see how it concerns them at all. Why do you think they'd want to stop you?

starbelgrade

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Basically I come from a photographic background.

Mother was a landscape, father was a skyline.

kaymin

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Basically I come from a photographic background. I got made redundant from my job managing a photoshop that was closed down in feb.

I since got a job working for a German retail supermarket but because I have all my photographic gear , ie studio lights gear, backdrops, I've been going out and doing jobs on the side and I've been making a killing if I'm honest.

I'm finding that the job suits me because I'm working early mornings some days and evening others , so I can fit this in quite easly.

I would like to do this legally as I'm working in people's homes and in schools soon.

Can my boss legally stop me doing this, plus are any of ye people out there working in jobs and doing stuff on the side legally that's not a conflict of interest from your job.
Thanks

What does your employment contract say?

ArtSmart

the only issue is tax. unless you have a contract that forbids outside work, which i doubt.

the legal forum might be a better place to ask

edit, re read ur post. are you saying you're doing this on company time? while doing a job for them? if so, yes, they could be justified in sacking you.

B.A._Baracus

ermm .. yeah. "true story" op.

Millicent

If you're doing it while you're supposed to be working in the day job, of course they can. Outside of working hours? Check your contract. Some will have a clause that you can't double job while employed with them.

admiralofthefleet

if it doesnt interfere with your job in adld then what you do in your own time is your business

Bruthal

kaymin wrote: »

What does your employment contract say?

It says dont be doing a lidl extra on the side

tan11ie

Only if it's stated in your contract.

monkeysnapper

I want to do this legally , I was actually talking to a guy I know the other week that giggs around the pubs with a few friends , he said most pubs now don't take on fellers to play unless their legal because there's a load of inspectors checking out the place looking for tax cheats??

jd007

starbelgrade wrote: »

Mother was a landscape, father was a skyline.

No need for such a negative reply

admiralofthefleet

jd007 wrote: »

No need for such a negative reply

lets see how this develops shall we

kaymin

monkeysnapper wrote: »

I want to do this legally , I was actually talking to a guy I know the other week that giggs around the pubs with a few friends , he said most pubs now don't take on fellers to play unless their legal because there's a load of inspectors checking out the place looking for tax cheats??

Doesn't really make sense - it's not the pub's obligation to ensure the tax affairs of people they contract are upto date. In the same way it's not Lidl / Aldi's responsibility to ensure you are paying tax on income you earn independently of them.

del88

starbelgrade wrote: »

Mother was a landscape, father was a skyline.

I like the way your thinking ...:-)

Strawberry Fields

Thinly veiled is it o.k. to have a double life thread

irishgirl19

Check your contract. In my contract it says I need prior written permission.
I would seek the ok, if they ever want rid of ya in the future they could use that as a perfectly legal excuse.

Are ya working in Lidl :-)

ArtSmart

godeas16 wrote: »

Thinly veiled is it o.k. to have a double life thread

or double income, mwha ha ha.

could just be me/ AH/ me, but I'm a little suspect.

starbelgrade

An employer can't prevent you from working for another employer as long as there is no breach of confidence (which could occur if you work for a direct competitor) and as long as the combined number of hours you work in both jobs does not exceed 48 hours per week.

Other than that, you are free to do what you want. If your contract says otherwise, ignore it - it's not something that is legally binding.

monkeysnapper

kaymin wrote: »

Doesn't really make sense - it's not the pub's obligation to ensure the tax affairs of people they contract are upto date. In the same way it's not Lidl / Aldi's responsibility to ensure you are paying tax on income you earn independently of them.

Not 100% certain but I think it is now, I think they are legally bound to ask for a cert to prove they are tax compliance , but like I said I'm not 100% certain of that.

My problem I suppose is I'm new to the job, its hard to find jobs out there, I'm a couple of weeks till my trial period ends and I feel if they found out before that ends I was doing other stuff on side they would think I wouldn't be flexible enough for them and as they have told me I'm training to go into managment and that will be very demanding on me.

I love doing the photography and the money is way way better, I'd love to go into it full time but leaving a job to go self employed and the having no back up from the government if I was to fail doesn't make it a worthy cause.

starbelgrade

irishgirl19 wrote: »

In my contract it says I need prior written permission.

You don't. Your employer is taking the piss by adding that to your contract.

admiralofthefleet

as long as you dont over expose your employer to it you will be fine

Strawberry Fields

monkeysnapper wrote: »

they would think I wouldn't be flexible enough for them and as they have told me I'm training to go into managment and that will be very demanding on me.

Wow the manager of Lidl or Andy Warhol????
Seriously man even thinking about it?

Gbear

Out of curiosity, why would they care if you were working 2 jobs?

Maybe if it's with competing companies it might make sense but I just don't see 1) why they'd give a ****e and 2) why it's any of their business.

mickdw

They will want to own you if you are going into management with them. I certainly wouldn't mention any other jobs during the trial period as they might form the opinion that you are the type that will do you hours and no more. They do not want this type of person, they want people to live for the company.

kaymin

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Not 100% certain but I think it is now, I think they are legally bound to ask for a cert to prove they are tax compliance , but like I said I'm not 100% certain of that.

My problem I suppose is I'm new to the job, its hard to find jobs out there, I'm a couple of weeks till my trial period ends and I feel if they found out before that ends I was doing other stuff on side they would think I wouldn't be flexible enough for them and as they have told me I'm training to go into managment and that will be very demanding on me.

If you buy a service / goods from someone there is no obligation to check on the tax status of the supplier.

monkeysnapper

mickdw wrote: »

They will want to own you if you are going into management with them. I certainly wouldn't mention any other jobs during the trial period as they might form the opinion that you are the type that will do you hours and no more. They do not want this type of person, they want people to live for the company.

This is exactly the way they are , what I'm wondering is if I was to get found out after the trial period would they find some way to kick me out, I'll defo have to look though my hand book , plus I'm assuming when I'm taken on ( if I'm taken on ) they may well have a new contract to sign, either way I won't be saying anything about this, but as anyone would tell you, sooner or later they will find out.

Strawberry Fields

I found it difficult to work and do an evening course which would make me over qualified to do my current job. Employers want to own you. Say nothing, keep the few quid from the day job and hope the photography takes off.
Unlikely they'll be checking your tax status that's a job for the revenue commissioners.

ArtSmart

kaymin wrote: »

If you buy a service / goods from someone there is no obligation to check on the tax status of the supplier.

i vaguely remember the revenue muttering something about 'self-employed' employees being an employer's responsibility or something. anyway, there's still a strange lack of clarity here - gonna put it down to language barrier or something. Art is

jhegarty

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

lets see how this develops shall we

Can we stop the puns and focus on the op ?

ArtSmart

jhegarty wrote: »

Can we stop the puns and focus on the op ?

yes, zoom in on the issue, as it were.



(then it'll only take a flash to illuminate the situation)

monkeysnapper

I've had of all your cheap shots , I'm off up to my darkroom , I'll check back in in the morning to see how things filter out

Bruthal

jhegarty wrote: »

Can we stop the puns and focus on the op ?

Yes yes we get the picture, he just wants it in b&w

Rhys Essien

OP,Just make sure your Pentax and regarding having 2 jobs,you Canon the basis that everything is legit.

Bruthal

Rhys Essien wrote: »

OP,Just make sure your Pentax and regarding having 2 jobs,you Canon the basis that everything is legit.

Iso pose thats clear to him

alphabeat

chrish almighty , its shtick central in here

Where To

Just say nothing and see what develops.

Pottler

You could claim that aldi other workers were at it as well.
Give it a shot if your sideline is exposed and they zoom in on you. Anyway, you can do whatever you like once the work shutter is down. F stopping and bag a lidl extra dough while it's going. It could just be a flash in the pan so you don't want to shelve the day job.

Overheal

I dont see how it's their problem as long as there is no conflict of interest.

As for laws on not working more than 48 hours a week: seriously?? Nanny state.

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

I dont see how it's their problem as long as there is no conflict of interest.

As for laws on not working more than 48 hours a week: seriously?? Nanny state.

It's an average. You can go over it occasionally, just so long as it doesn't form the basis for your regular working week. You will never convince me that's a bad thing. Having worked three/four jobs for the last couple of years and doing stupidly long hours, I much prefer the whole "one job worked for reasonable hours" thing. It's not nanny state-ism to protect workers.

Overheal

Millicent wrote: »

It's an average. You can go over it occasionally, just so long as it doesn't form the basis for your regular working week. You will never convince me that's a bad thing. Having worked three/four jobs for the last couple of years and doing stupidly long hours, I much prefer the whole "one job worked for reasonable hours" thing. It's not nanny state-ism to protect workers.

Its the very definition in fact. Adults can freely choose how long they wish to work for. My employer sets minimum availability standards. Beyond which, I can tell them when I'm available. They can schedule me within that frame. That's it*. It's Nanny to tell employees how long they can work for. It would not be nanny state if they wanted to regulate that employers adhere to a schedule of availability. An employer should be able to set the minimum; the employee should be able to set the maximum. This is something my employer does on their own as they found it makes good business sense.

*Well, they can, but they have to go into the scheduling system and perform an override. To which I can always do a few things in retailiation. One is I can work those hours anyway, or I can contact someone from HR, or (as I chose to do this week when they tried to bring me in an hour earlier than my availability) I called in to tell them I wouldn't be in work that day before my set hours and they would have to make do without me for the hour, to which I received no pushback about. I've agreed to overrides for previous supervisors and they've abused the right.

Millicent

Overheal wrote: »

Its the very definition in fact. Adults can freely choose how long they wish to work for. My employer sets minimum availability standards. Beyond which, I can tell them when I'm available. They can schedule me within that frame. That's it*. It's Nanny to tell employees how long they can work for. It would not be nanny state if they wanted to regulate that employers adhere to a schedule of availability. An employer should be able to set the minimum; the employee should be able to set the maximum. This is something my employer does on their own as they found it makes good business sense.

*Well, they can, but they have to go into the scheduling system and perform an override. To which I can always do a few things in retailiation. One is I can work those hours anyway, or I can contact someone from HR, or (as I chose to do this week when they tried to bring me in an hour earlier than my availability) I called in to tell them I wouldn't be in work that day before my set hours and they would have to make do without me for the hour, to which I received no pushback about. I've agreed to overrides for previous supervisors and they've abused the right.

It's not nanny state, it's protecting the welfare and safety of the workforce. Why have a government if not to protect its citizenship? It's not meant to stop employees deciding their own hours; it's to stop employers abusing their workforce through coercion or other means of requiring them to work long hours.

We also have minimum break periods and legislated rest periods between shifts. Do you disagree with those also? Those things are some of the only things I respect about our current laws.

msg11

Millicent wrote: »

It's not nanny state, it's protecting the welfare and safety of the workforce. Why have a government if not to protect its citizenship? It's not meant to stop employees deciding their own hours; it's to stop employers abusing their workforce through coercion or other means of requiring them to work long hours.

We also have minimum break periods and legislated rest periods between shifts. Do you disagree with those also? Those things are some of the only things I respect about our current laws.

Most people I talk to do they are lucky to get there slotted allowed breaks and IMO it's the big players like Tesco, that have to play by the rules and the other company's run riot.

I think it's madness that people don't take there breaks which they are legally entitled to and then I hear story's of 6/7 days weeks. It's statutory law that any employee get's two days rest, in 24 hour straights. It's also law that you get 10 hours rest between each shift.

BTW the state is doing nothing to protect any worker, they see workers as people lucky to have a job. This government has abandoned me and it's basically the boss runs the show and if your not happy , **** it , there's someone to replace you.

corktina

tell your employer what your doing....fill em in loike...

Milk & Honey

kaymin wrote: »

If you buy a service / goods from someone there is no obligation to check on the tax status of the supplier.

There is an obligation on you not to conspire with the supplier to defraud the Revenue. That means you should have an invoice from the supplier with full details of the service provided and the suppliers name and address and Vat reference number if applicable. You should also keep a proper record of the payment.
A pub which allows a band play and pays them with cash taken from the till without getting an invoice or receipt is going to have problems explaining it to the revenue.
What pubs are telling musicians is that they must issue a proper invoice on headed paper and accept payment by cheque or it's no deal.

seamus

The 48 hour rule only applies to normal employment. Self employed people can work as many hours as they wish. So there is no restriction on the op unless he gets a second employee position.

Also your employer cannot have a "no working outside of work" rule in your contract. The only restriction there is that if you compete with or steal work from your employer they will fire you and can sue you.

fasttalkerchat

If its LIDL you're with then can stop you but might not if there's no effect on your work.

goat2

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

lets see how this develops shall we

lets not go to a dark place with this