Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
boris1066

Who Pays

Recommended Posts

An employer seeks to up their corporate image by imposing a uniform on their staff.

 

Who pays for the uniform ?

 

The employee or the employer ? Wearing a uniform is not in the employees original terms and conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an employer merely prescribes a general type of ordinary, basic street clothing

employees should wear while working, and permits variations in details of dress, the garments chosen by the employees would not be considered uniforms and the employee pays.

Where the employer prescribes a specific type and style of clothing to be worn at

work, such clothing would be considered a uniform and the employer pays. I think :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an employer merely prescribes a general type of ordinary, basic street clothing

employees should wear while working, and permits variations in details of dress, the garments chosen by the employees would not be considered uniforms and the employee pays.

Where the employer prescribes a specific type and style of clothing to be worn at

work, such clothing would be considered a uniform and the employer pays. I think :unsure:

 

Thanks for that Wolfie. Do you know of a source of legal or standard custom and practise for confirmation ?

 

 

 

You been on the ale Obs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that having a corporate image is a good thing and looks more professional.

 

Also a daily uniform is probably is easier for many workers (especially the more fashion concious males/females) as there is no need to have a different personal outfit for every day thus cutting the costs of the 'fear factor' of wearing the same personal wardrobe item more that once a week/month. Some people are very odd like that.

 

But who should pay... well like Wolfie I'd guess that if the employer just says black skirt/trousers, black shoes, white top (for example) the the worker is free to choose their own style (cheap or expensive as long as it complies) so they should pay.

 

If however the employer says company standard specific items with logos etc, which not only makes workers look more corporate but is also a form of advertising which benefits the company.... then the company should pay.

 

Hard to know really though without knowing what the company would actually charge the employees IF they had to pay for it themselves.

 

Did any of that make sense :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies can claim back any expenditure on corporate workwear against tax. They can also change an employees terms or contract provided at least 3 months written confirmation is given

 

 

 

so any company wishing to impose a change of clothing policy can do so quite legally providing notice is given. They can also forgoe buying the items themselves and insist that any clothing worn by the employees is to a set standard (shirt colour, no trainers etc etc. After the notice period is given, any employee who trys to play clever and not conform can be subject to disciplinary rules.

 

 

 

Companies are responsible for providing ppe (personal protective equipment) if the job of their employee dictates. Safety boots, gloves, overalls, glasses etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can also retrospectively claim for the cleaning of uniforms for about 6 years I believe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to go out and buy new clothes as my current wardrobe wasn't suitable for teaching in a certain educational establishment. Had to get an ankle length skirt, shirt that covered the neck and something to put on that covered elbows. The money came out of my own pocket and I was given 3 days notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to go out and buy new clothes as my current wardrobe wasn't suitable for teaching in a certain educational establishment. Had to get an ankle length skirt, shirt that covered the neck and something to put on that covered elbows. The money came out of my own pocket and I was given 3 days notice.

 

A muslim school? A long sleeved shirt would have covered elbows, would have covered full arm in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadako.... why is it that the majority (non-Jewish, Non-Muslim etc) always seem to have to take into account the religious and cultural beliefs of others and yet when non-Jewish, Non-Muslim people complain that they find the likes of a full bhurka or long hair and funny hats scary, they are vilified?

 

 

 

Beats me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to go out and buy new clothes as my current wardrobe wasn't suitable for teaching in a certain educational establishment. Had to get an ankle length skirt, shirt that covered the neck and something to put on that covered elbows. The money came out of my own pocket and I was given 3 days notice.

Sounds a bit Islamic !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue isn't wearing it, my issue is being told by my employer that " you have to teach here and you need to buy the uniform. You need it in a few days but we are not going to help you with costs". I bought one skirt then was told that it wasn't right as it had a slit in the back. I had to sew a bit of material over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Wolfie. Do you know of a source of legal or standard custom and practise for confirmation ?

 

Hi Boris, if you contact ACAS 08457 474747 mon-fri 8am-8pm sat 9am-1pm they will give you advice regarding any employment issues or disputes. They will tell you your rights and inform you of current employment legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadako, I take it your not a member of a Union? :unsure:

 

I was a member of the EETU back in the 90's when I was a young electrician... I worked as a contractor on Kelloggs in Manchester for almost 9 years and for one reason or another, we ended up on strike.

 

Instead of supporting us (there were almost 120 of us on strike), the area rep came down and told us to go back to work as they had just got their union recognised by Kelloggs for their workers and didn't want to upset them!!

 

 

 

I left the union not long afterwards as it was a complete waste of time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions arn't all about strikes Baz; they provide legal support etc; which in cases like Sadako's would assist in minimising exploitation. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...