casual workers rights?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by quiller, Aug 25, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. a little birdy has just informed me that the old part time royal irish have just won a case regarding casual workers rights against the govt. this was brought on the back of kent parttime fire service winning theirs.

    i haven't all the detail yet but will persevere if needed.

    in essence it comes down to casual worker holiday pay, the royal irish are getting theirs back dated to 2000, and their rights under european law:

    This is a broader category than 'employees' but normally excludes those who are self-employed. A worker is any individual who works for an employer, whether under a contract of employment, or any other contract where an individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services. Workers are entitled to core employment rights and protections. The following groups of people are likely to be workers but not employees:

    most agency workers
    short term casual workers
    some freelancers

    The basics of holiday rights
    There is a minimum right to paid holiday, but your employer may offer more than this. The main things you should know about holiday rights are:

    you are entitled to a minimum of 4.8 weeks (from 1 October 2007)

    kent fire service won their bid:

    now, i'm not bringing up the whole pensions thing again or trying to get money for nothing, but more just attempting to find out what rights the ta do or should actually have under our laws (european or british) as casual workers, as these must also change under the new temporary/ agency worker rulings.

    do we have a case?
  2. But don't the Royal Irish have a separate 'readiness category' or whatever the official terminology is?
  3. As a free-lancer and self-employed I have stumbled around this issue for the last year or so and my understanding (which may be completely incorrect) is that you are entitled to a percentage of a paid day off for everyday worked.
    The sticking point, as Quiller has noted is over the definition of "worker" which basically comes down to any
    kind of agreed commitment to work, which can be as straight forward as:
    "Bob accepts a days work from Jeff, however Bill also offers Bob a days work but as Bob has already agreed to work for Jeff he turns him down".
    We, as TA, of course do have a commitment to work, however as that is in return for the bounty, I don't know if it counts. I suspect there could be an argument for paid holiday on days worked over the bounty requirement.
  4. ptp - although now disbanded i think the Royal Irish won because they had part time as part of their official title.

    bk - the percentage is around one percent but they also received a bounty in the same way that the TA do.
  5. The TA are casual labour in the eyes of employment law, hence entitled to sod all. You can look up previous threads and employment law websites for the detail, but that's the executive summary.

    The RI won because their commitment was far higher than the TA, hence they passed the test for being an employee rather than casual labour. As is regrettably common the MoD decided to waste public money arguing that black = white by fighting this case. As mentioned above, they were even called part time !
  6. Folks,

    To dispell a few myths in this thread here in the current position as regards the R IRISH Home Service Part Time (HSPT) - now disbanded with effect 31 Mar 07.

    1. I am quite well informed on this subject as I am one of the 1,052 claimants against the MoD.
    2. These cases started in 2001 and have been running ever since.
    3. Contrary to what has been stated above the R IRISH HSPT case IS NOT SETTLED.
    4. Sadley I am uunable to give precise details as the case is still to go to Tribunal for a decision.
    5. The HSPT case is at a deligate stage so I must refrain from further comment - sorry!

    On the issue of 'casual labour' a worker is a 'casual worker' if there is no 'mutality of understanding' that the employer will provide the work and the worker will do the work. If the employer can discipline the worker for not turning up to do the work then the relationship is NOT 'casual.' If the employer can discipline the worker for not turning up or for lateness etc then there must be a contract of employement existing and the worker is an employee of the employer. An employer cannot discipline a worker if the relationship is casual.

    In TA speak then you can be disciplined only for the 19 or 27 days obligatory training. You cannot be disciplined for failing to turn up for a duty as 'mess waiter' as that duty is voluntary and therefore casual.

    This is a big subject which has been going around for some time and no doubt will continue to do so.

  7. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator


    You can only be disciplined for any misdemeanours carried out whilst on duty. Failing to turn up for an event is not a disciplinary offence, although continued non attendance may lead to administrative action being taken.

    There is no such thing as "obligatory" TA training, but failure to attend the minimum training requirement will result in the loss of bounty.

    Bn SAAM, camp or mess waiter duties are all the same - voluntary. Once attending, and signed on, then the soldier is subject to military discipline whether they have done 19, 27 or 300 days that year.

    I hope your brief has a better understanding of the TA system if he intends to draw any comparisons on your behalf.
  8. Duke,

    How does that square with TA Regs ?
    3.109. Failure to Attend Obligatory Training.

    a. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a member of the TA who fails to attend for obligatory training and whose absence has not been satisfactorily accounted for is not to be taken into military custody, but is liable to be proceeded against before a magistrates’ court as provided in para 3.118.

    b. In Scotland the RFCA is to follow the procedure specified in para 3.119.

    Now, I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted but before the bit above TA Regs seem to state that that TA soldiers are required to be there at Annual Camp, its NOT voluntary

    3.108. ..... Every member of the TA is legally required to attend the whole of the period laid down for annual training in camp. Leave can be granted by the commanding officer.

    TA Regs also lay down a process for informing soldiers by public notice and recorded delivery letter of Camp details - looks to me a bit more than a casual "turn up if you like" was intended by Parliament. It appears that the MOD continues to want to have its cake, eat it - and charge us for the rations....

    edited to add.... and the VRSM Regs contained within TA Regs also state ... "earned training bounty as required by his obligatory training commitment as defined in individual service regulations in 9 out of the 10 qualifying years and his service is thus deemed efficient

    so if, as you believe there is no "obligatory training" - how come there are folk floating about with the gong ?

    In your comments about liability to military law I think you are confusing that liability with the obligation to turn up to camp - different thing. Note also that TA Officers ARE subject to military law 24/365.

    And going back to the base legislation - Reserve Forces Act 1996, Section 95...

    Offences against orders and regulations under section 4

    (1) A member of a reserve force who—
    (a) when required by or in pursuance of orders or regulations under section 4 to attend at any place, fails without reasonable excuse to attend in accordance with the requirement;..................... is guilty of an offence triable by court-martial or summarily by a civil court.
  9. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    How come? Because TA regs rarely reflect reality.

    Go to any TA unit in the country and tell them to follow the regulations quoted above and see how you get on. I would love to see the first court case where a TA soldier is taken to court because he didn't attend annual camp.

    The VSRM is a red herring. Obligatory vs compulsory vs required for efficiency cert.
  10. The Duke, - Last I heard the TA were part of the 'One Army' therefore...

    Section 29a of the Army Act - "Failing to attend for a duty which his/her duty required him/her to attend"

    If you have a contract to do 19 or 27 days obligatory training and you fail to complete turn up for thos days they they have got you - if they want but I agree it is most likely that Admin discharge will take place rather that a 252.

    As for my 'brief' he was not invloved in my post just me!!

  11. We tried several times back in the '70s we tried to get people who failed to turn up for camp after getting an employers release certificate signed dealt with. The advice from TAVRA/District was not to bother as it would be bad publicity.
  12. With respect, its what the Law says that tends to be important in a Law Court. Just because some aspects of our contract are not enforced does not negate their existence.
  13. Excellent. Another totally pointless thread - so say you fought for any back pay and won - where exactly does this money come from? The army is skint and the TA is under a review (although we are assured that this is not a cost cutting exercise - hmm) and there seems to be a constant griping for more money; whether holiday pay or pensions etc. This is something you volunteered to do. Accept the pay and bounty or leave. Its a lot cheaper than finding back-door methods to sue the MoD over.
  14. i'm not after money for nothing, being a member of the TA i feel i am outside that benefit grapping populus and hope i am putting something back into society.

    it doesn't mean that i can't throw it out for discussion, that is what internet threads are for.
  15. msr

    msr LE

    Well I can guarantee that the TA/MOD would lose as I have never seen the recorded letter in which TA Regs state the camp dates have to be sent.