Can I keep working from home?

LegacyUser

OP here. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply - when I try to post from my phone it doesn't appear on here.

I'm at my PhD 10 years because I've had several long leave of absences - for babies, getting married, when my employer needed me to work full-time, etc. In total, I've done 2 years full time, and 3.5 part time; I have 0.5 part-time left to do, which is what I'm currently enroled for. I haven't been working on it for 10 years continuously!

The contracts don't change; they're all the same apart from the project name and particular tasks I'm to complete - and that's usually very vague. They don't specify anything about where the work is done.

I do desk research - literature reviews, analysing data, writing reports and grant applications - in a fairly esoteric area. I hope this clarifies why it's possible to do it from just about anywhere. It's just that the next lot of data will need particularly high security levels, so working on it outside of the office isn't possible. I just hadn't been told about the security issues at all.

As to why I was working from home, like I said, impossible work environment (noise) combined with the fact that I wasn't provided with a usable computer (Windows 98, Microsoft Works and IE5 if memory serves; locked so nothing could be installed/updated), and every time someone walked in the door of the room, they hit my chair with the door. I did organise an office clean-up to move the furniture around and create a bit more space, but then they put more people in with us so the noise got even worse.

Having said all that, I've now accepted that I will have to work in the office, but at least the project is running late so I've had a couple of weeks to work things out domestically. When I was told originally, it came across as something that they were expecting to start the following Monday morning.

Someone back along said I was clueless about the basics, and I think they hit the nail on the head. I don't even know what "the basics" are! I've always worked in research, with a few related bits of other work on the side at times when things were a bit lean. I've never had any contact with a HR person, never had an induction, a company handbook or similar doesn't exist (to the best of my knowledge - certainly I've never heard of or seen one).

So, I suppose my question now is what should I read up on to be better informed when the next contract comes around, baring in mind that it's an academic rather than a corporate environment? Or is there any point considering that the contracts are non-negotiable and I can't say no until I have my PhD in the bag?

LegacyUser

JustAThought wrote: »

rovoagho wrote: »

Since you don't know the details of the OP's academic career, you're hardly qualified to comment. If you want to comment, then perhaps you should ask for those details first.


A research grant for completion of a phd is granted year on year for a max of 5 years - for quality work. - if you are lucky. I know - I work in phd programme finance . Anyone " still doing " a phd " from home" after 10 years would easily be percieved by all involved as a total waste of space.

OP won't fill in the blanks & seems to think the world owes her a cushy lifestyle & living - perhaps she should just retire to life on social welfare - there she won't have to worry about having to perform, turn up for work or contribute - items from her lists she has a major issue with.

Eh ... research grant? Where'd you get that from?! I'm funding myself.

_Kaiser_

JustAThought wrote: »

OP won't fill in the blanks & seems to think the world owes her a cushy lifestyle & living - perhaps she should just retire to life on social welfare - there she won't have to worry about having to perform, turn up for work or contribute - items from her lists she has a major resentment towards & issues with.

Actually I wouldn't suggest retiring to a life on welfare as an option for anyone - I know there are some that do exactly that, but those are the ones that should be identified and forced back into the labour market or made earn their dole through working in their communities etc

But yes, looking back over it it doesn't add up in several ways. The OP goes on about the costs, but is employing/supporting a full time au-pair as it is?

The facts are that you go where the work is - especially these days and particularly as a contractor, and it seems to me (in the absence of confirmation to the contrary) that the OP took advantage of absent/offsite management to start working from home, and think that this lifestyle should continue indefinitely.

My advice is still to suck it up and get on with it personally, but her employer is under no legal or moral obligation here IMO

Mrs OBumble

JustAThought wrote: »

OP won't fill in the blanks & seems to think the world owes her a cushy lifestyle & living - perhaps she should just retire to life on social welfare - there she won't have to worry about having to perform, turn up for work or contribute - items from her lists she has a major resentment towards & issues with.

Lads, please tone it down.

My finger hovered over the warning button ove the post I've quoted here - finally I decided that it's simply making unjustified assumptions, rather than being personally abusive - but it may be that another mod would call it differently.

Sometimes it's worth remembering that other people's working life can be vastly different from your own.

From now on, please only post if you can contribute some useful observation or suggestion for the OP.



/moderation

davo10

OP thank you for the info, it clarifies your predicament a lot. If the contracts are the same then in theory you should be allowed to continue to work at home but because it is a new contract it is seperate and distinct from the one before therefore they may not allow you to work at home.

Also, where some may have assumed that your employer just decided you had to work on site, the new info provides a very good and valid reason for this, imagine the consequences for you and your employer if highly confidential documents were lost/stolen while you had them off site.

Diziet

OP, most academics are not informed on their employment rights, and most academic institutions are pretty exploitative in their work practices. It is a good idea to join the union in your workplace.

Successive short term contracts after 4 years give you the same employment rights as perm employees under EU legislation, including pension, etc. I know your immediate questons has been answered, but it is no harm to be informed.

_Kaiser_

Ah yes, in light of the OP's updates (which didn't show until after I posted above - presumably cause they're posting as unreg) the picture changes somewhat.

To be honest, if the company is that disorganised I'd probably be looking elsewhere but your PhD complicates that, however you should checkout if there's a stipulation that you commit x amount of further time to the company or compensate them for the cost of it if you left before this (most companies that sponsor/fund employee education usually have a clause like this worked in).

The next question I'd be asking is what the environment in the office is like now and is it still as bad as you described above? If so, some frank but polite words with your manager would be in order along the lines of that to deliver on this project you will need a suitable workspace, laptop etc

You should also talk to HR immediately to get a copy of your contract and look over it to see what it contains. As mentioned above you may be entitled to rights that you aren't being given, or at the very least you should know where you stand.

The commuting/costs issue is still yours either way, but maybe as part of your discussions with your boss something can be worked out.

_Kaiser_

Diziet wrote: »

OP, most academics are not informed on their employment rights, and most academic institutions are pretty exploitative in their work practices. It is a good idea to join the union in your workplace

Disagree there. Assuming there even IS a union, the employer may be under no obligation to deal with them - and why pay membership fees when she could check these things out with the help of the various employment rights sites online.

davo10

Diziet wrote: »

Successive short term contracts after 4 years give you the same employment rights as perm employees under EU legislation, including pension, etc. I know your immediate questons has been answered, but it is no harm to be informed.

This is incorrect. If the employee works continuously for 4 years on successive term contracts, then if they are retained beyond this period, they must be given a full time contract.

OP was employed for specific projects on short term contracts which were not continuous but occasional (see "beck and call" reference), therefore each contract was determined when each project ended, therefore she is not entitled to permanency. Think of it this way, if a person got contracts totalling 4 years over a ten year period with gaps in between, would the person be entitled to be full time at the end of the last contract? No.

Diziet

davo10 wrote: »

This is incorrect. If the employee works continuously for 4 years on successive term contracts, then if they are retained beyond this period, they must be given a full time contract.

OP was employed for specific projects on short term contracts which were not continuous but occasional (see "beck and call" reference), therefore each contract was determined when each project ended, therefore she is not entitled to permanency. Think of it this way, if a person got contracts totalling 4 years over a ten year period with gaps in between, would the person be entitled to be full time at the end of the last contract? No.

You are correct, the contracts have to be continuous, but they may be part time (hence the 'beck and call') but still continuous. In that case, the entitlement is not so much permanency but they would be entitled to redundancy at the end of their contract.

BTW, in response to a previous comment, I made the assumption that the OP works for an academic institution, and they do recognise unions.

davo10

Diziet wrote: »

You are correct, the contracts have to be continuous, but they may be part time (hence the 'beck and call') but still continuous. In that case, the entitlement is not so much permanency but they would be entitled to redundancy at the end of their contract..

Nope. Again you are confusing a "part time" employee with a term contract, one works part time indefinately or for a certain period, the other for a defined term/task duration.

Term contracts normally have a clause outlining that when the term/task ends, the contract is determined (expired) and the unfair dismissals act does not apply. Therefore no payment, no redundancy at end of contract, when its finished, its finished.

rovoagho

davo10 wrote: »

If the contracts are the same then in theory you should be allowed to continue to work at home but because it is a new contract it is seperate and distinct from the one before therefore they may not allow you to work at home.

So yes but no then?

Also, where some may have assumed that your employer just decided you had to work on site, the new info provides a very good and valid reason for this, imagine the consequences for you and your employer if highly confidential documents were lost/stolen while you had them off site.

"Having said all that, I've now accepted that I will have to work in the office"

What a completely redundant post.

Diziet

davo10 wrote: »

Nope. Again you are confusing a "part time" employee with a term contract, one works part time indefinately or for a certain period, the other for a defined term/task duration.

Term contracts normally have a clause outlining that when the term/task ends, the contract is determined (expired) and the unfair dismissals act does not apply. Therefore no payment, no redundancy at end of contract, when its finished, its finished.

I am not confusing them - the reference to the legislation is here http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national_labour_law_latest_country_reports/national_court_rulings/court_decisions/prm/64/v__detail/id__1392/category__17/index.html

davo10

rovoagho wrote: »

So yes but no then?



"Having said all that, I've now accepted that I will have to work in the office"

What a completely redundant post.

Inform yourself. One more time for the boy at the back of the class, term contracts are singular contracts in this case for specific tasks, each task being different. If OP was doing the same job each time and each contract was the same, then it would be reasonable to assume that she could continue to work from home. But this project is different and we now know it involves confidential documents so new and distinct contract for new and distinct task. We didn't know this until OP posted it.

Rovagho, for those who understand, no explanation necessary, for those who do not at this stage, none possible.

davo10

Diziet wrote: »

I am not confusing them - the reference to the legislation is here http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national_labour_law_latest_country_reports/national_court_rulings/court_decisions/prm/64/v__detail/id__1392/category__17/index.html

Yes you are, read the last sentence of that link, the term contract was valid.

Also look back through my posts, you will see reference to the "unfair dismissals act" which if stated does not apply at the end of the contract, then contractor has no right to full time employment. Also OP was employed to do different tasks at different times.

Also, what does this link say about redundancy? An employee must work continuously for 104 weeks to qualify for redundancy, which OP seems not to have as each contract was approximately 12 months.

rovoagho

davo10 wrote: »

Inform yourself.

Inform myself about what, the fact that you can quote a reply to a completely different person and respond completely out of context in some vain attempt to demonstrate how super-clever you are? And super-condescending into the bargain? Well done, you must be super-proud.

davo10

rovoagho wrote: »

Inform myself about what, the fact that you can quote a reply to a completely different person and respond completely out of context in some vain attempt to demonstrate how super-clever you are? And super-condescending into the bargain? Well done, you must be super-proud.

What are you on about?, you are using a previous post by me in your dialogue and replying to my posts, therefore my post is in context. Quoting the correct interpretation is not showing how clever a poster is, it's merely quoting the correct interpretation.

rovoagho

I see. Even more ridiculous then. Do me a favour, go away and waste someone else's time with your nonsense.

stevenmu

davo10 wrote: »

Term contracts normally have a clause outlining that when the term/task ends, the contract is determined (expired) and the unfair dismissals act does not apply. Therefore no payment, no redundancy at end of contract, when its finished, its finished.

Is unfair dismissal really relevant here? I thought the main issue is habitual place of employment?

Diziet

Successive contracts, even if not absolutely day to day continuous, provide considerable additional protection to the employee. I have no wish to enter into an argument; my advice to the OP to inform herself on contacts and employment rights stands, even though the original question has been resolved.

davo10

stevenmu wrote: »

Is unfair dismissal really relevant here? I thought the main issue is habitual place of employment?

Steven, the inclusion of this line in the contract is very very important. In the Term/Termination paragraph of the contract, if the employer includes the line" At the end of the term of this contract on a specific date/ completion of task, the contract is determined and the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply", the employee has no rights to continuity nor claim of unfair dismissal at the end of the contract. If it does not reference the Unfair Dismissals Act, then the employee does have rights. The CitizensInformation website has an excellent page on fixed term contracts. So it's inclusion or omission in the terms of the contract is crucial.

Up until the OP posted the reason why she has to work on site, the previous contracts and whether each one was distinct and determined and whether this clause was present was important. If it wasn't then she would have been on solid ground to request working from home as one contract would have continued on from the previous one.

LegacyUser

Diziet wrote: »

Successive contracts, even if not absolutely day to day continuous, provide considerable additional protection to the employee. I have no wish to enter into an argument; my advice to the OP to inform herself on contacts and employment rights stands, even though the original question has been resolved.

So, does this apply even if you work part time? I was on a part time contract last year/early this year for about 8 months. Then I was on maternity leave (the state one, no employer contribution; no active contract). I'm now on a 12 month part time contract, and there will be another right after it.

Firstly, does the period immediately before the mat leave count towards the 4 years? The contract literally ended the day before my leave began, and the new one started the very day I was back.

Secondly, following on from the above, if I can get another 16 month contract at the end of the current 24 months, what exactly would I be entitled to? At present I am only paid for hours worked; I don't get sick or holiday pay, and I have no pension or health insurance through my employer. I also have no job security beyond each contract.

Diziet

Do you have a union at your workplace? You should join it and get their advice. It is hard to tell without a legal expert with employment expertise looking at the arrangements.
Being part time does not reduce your rights. I find it strange that you do not get holiday pay, are you an employee, or self employed?

Mrs OBumble

MOD-NOTE: please remember that you must not give legal advice, or advice that sounds like legal advice here.


OP, the number of hours that you work each week is irrelevant AFAIK. What matters is whether your contracts were continuous, or close to it, and perhaps what you were doing (ie same tasks on different materials, or totally different tasks), and how your contracts are worded.

I really do think that you need proper union or legal advice. The former is likely to be cheaper, and have better knowledge of the specific of your industry, but the latter would be more in your control. The reason I'm saying this is that there are some odd features of your situation - eg how did you get "maternity leave" and indeed Maternity Benefit, if you didn't have an employment contract covering that time, do your contracts count as continuous or not, etc.

As to what you would get: the main benefit would be what's called a "contract of infinite duration", and probably a sorting out of your holiday pay situation - not paying holiday pay is generally illegal. How much real benefit this would be in your situation is unclear - you could still be made redundant if the work ran out, but it would cost the company / university a payout. Also, if you ever want to get a mortgage, you need one of these to meet the requirements of most banks these days. Sick-pay, health insurance etc are not minimum employment conditions, so there are no guarantees there.