Re-read my post! I never called you a Hypocrite! About time
Lets get Back on topic I don’t want to get into a war on words getagrip you have your opinion and I respect that . I can no longer defend the club .
I will explain how I feel I was not happy with all the time I spent oncall ie not being able to leave the site for upto 48hrs at a time , but we did it and put up with all the other crap that got thrown our way but hey ho that's the job.
Then the CCC decided to take caravan allowance and responsibility allowance off us have you never heard the saying the final straw that broke the camel’s back
So I looked into the law refs oncall law and overtime and found out the CCC are breaking the law if we cannot leave your place of work , home or have to be in a certain place (the employer has control over the employees ) .By not paying for call outs they are breaking min wage law .
If your employer says that you have to stay in a certain place when you are oncall, then all the hours you are on call will count as time at work you may live on site but you can’t leave the site
No matter what you think about the club you have to ask yourself is this legal or fair. The CC wardens are given mobiles and are paid for callouts + they can leave the site when on call.
CCC staff have to check campers in when they arrive anytime upto 23.00hrs booked or off roaders.
They cannot leave the site when on call and they do not get paid for call outs.
( For me the above means 7 days out of 14 days I cannot leave the site )
This will be our last year with the club and we have decided to take legal advice refs oncall time , not for the cash because I don’t like someone pissing up my back and telling me it’s raining.
Don’t just take my word 2 cases that went to court
Do on call workers, who are not at their workplace, still need to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage?
There has been much case law over recent years about when on call workers are entitled to be paid. The Scottish EAT has now added to the vast amount of case law on the matter, by hearing the case of; Truslove and another v Scottish Ambulance Service. Truslove confirms the current position, which is that where a worker is required to remain at the workplace and available for work with a view to providing their services at some point, this will amount to working-time and not a rest period. This is the case even if the worker is allowed to sleep and so the worker is entitled to be paid for their time.
In Truslove, the employees were paramedics and the employer required staff to work at different stations from their normal, daily station. The employer set response targets for staff of three minutes and employees were able to stay at alternative accommodation. The question for the EAT was this; were the paramedics entitled to be paid, at least the National Minimum Wage, for their time spent on call within the three mile radius?
The answer was yes. The reason for this was that the employer had control over the employees, as they had to stay within the three minute radius, even though the paramedics were not at the workplace.
This case will impact employers in situations where recruitment of on call staff is commonplace, for instance in the holiday, hospitality and care industries, as the effect of this case undoubtedly extends the case law from instances where workers are entitled to be paid whilst they are at the workplace, to where they are not, provided the employer still has control over them.
This case can be distinguished from cases where a worker is “on call” overnight. Where a worker is
Case 2 “on call” and the night-time work is not the essential nature of the worker’s job, any time spent not actually responding to a call is usually regarded as “non-working time” for which they are not entitled to be paid. During this time the worker is at liberty to go about their activities as they wish (including sleeping) and will only be entitled to be paid where time is actually spent responding to a “call”. The key difference then between such “on call” working and Mrs Whittlestone’s case, which was emphasised by the EAT, is the fact that Mrs Whittlestone’s duty during the sleepover shift was to be physically present at the service user’s home.
Her activities during sleepover hours were limited and in the words of the Judge,
Mrs Whittlestone was not able to “slip out for a late night movie or fish and chips