Samuel Smiths - Law breakers and slave drivers?

[Max]

It has become ever increasingly evident, that the policy of the brewery (or is it just Humphrey 'bedlam' Smith?) is to continually reduce staff hour allocations at venues - to the point whereby at least one of the following will happen..

• Managers forced to work ridiculous hours - taking their hourly pay-rate below the legal threshold, or..
• Reduced cleaners hours = dirtier, less hygienic premises = reduced custom
• Reduced kitchen/cook/catering hours = less food-serving times = reduced custom
• Reduced overall staff and customer management = health & safety compromises = legal liability exposure
• Reduced bar and cellar cleaning / maintenance = health & safety compromises = legal liability exposure

..and that's just for starters. And then of course there's the general well-being of management - i.e. extensive exposure to stress/anxiety, and the physical and mental disabilities associated with such an illness or condition.

Basically - this is yet another example of Humphrey Smith, not giving a damn about the well being of individuals. His attitude is - 'if you don't like it, you can clear off'!

Well quite frankly - I think things have gone far enough - and I can see it is becoming time to fight back!

Sadly, Smith (Humphrey) defends his corruption with highly paid barristers. Although it is alleged that he has made freely available, a fund for managers to draw down on, in the event of making a legal challenge against the brewery. I would be interested to know if anyone has any more information on this.

I also find it difficult to understand how stupid, thick or just plain ignorant Smith is. For an individual to constantly flout the law, decency and civil rights - and overall, upset so many people - you would think he would be a little more careful about his own well-being. But no! Smith still walks to and from work, to his residence (Oxton Hall) - on his own!

Anyway, back to pay structures - and the minimum wage..

Smith is forcing managers to work extensive hours - under the threat of 'do or go', and told that their wage is legal, as they have their accommodation provided. So let's take a closer look at the law - and the facts.

English law/legsilation/guidance currently states..

There is a limit to the amount that an employer providing accommodation can count towards national minimum wage pay. That limit is referred to in this guidance as the accommodation offset.

The accommodation offset is calculated at a rate of ?4.15 per day (rising to ?4.30 from 1st October 2007) for each day that the employer makes the accommodation available to the worker in a pay reference period (up to a maximum of ?29.05 a week rising to ?30.10 from 1st October 2007).

The accommodation offset provisions will apply whenever an employer provides accommodation to the worker.

The full document can be see/downloaded from here

Now please correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm under the distinct impression that many managers are being shafted - for want of a better term.

The above document is also located in our new section: Helping you - resources. Also just added to this section, is a link to the Citizerns Advice Bureau, 'Basic Rights at Work'


==========================================


Meanwhile, I've created a calculator so that managers with accommodation, can see if they are being paid the minimal legal amount, when the maximum financial deduction for accommodation (as stated by law) has been taken in to consideration.

LAUNCH CALCULATOR HERE

There is also a Poll on the site, where you can anonymously tell all how your wage fairs up here

[moggy]

i couldnt have put it better myself, cant wait to see the outcome of these tribunals or will the smiths pay up to keep it from going to court, with a gagging clause of course cos there cant be any publicity, not heard any union reps on the site for a while, it would be nice to know what is going on. i think the latest stunt the brewery are pulling is a cracker, sack managers interview new managment couple place them in a pub the day after on a joint salary of ?65 tell them to work 14 hrs a day and just for good measure there is no training, and guess what some silly people are actually taking the job, and according to Mr Smith are content, years ago i was constantly being poached by other yorkshire breweries and i always turned them down, and when i asked one area manager why he kept targeting SS pubs he told me it was because SS had one of the finest training programs in the UK, Gentleman Geoffrey (as H Smiths father was called) must be turning in his grave.

[Mr Zak]

I guess there's lots of us who pretty much feel the same way about Humphrey and the way he runs his business, and it's interesting to note that when Humphrey's illegal actions are actually confronted by someone with hard facts and evidence, he backs off, as all cowards do.

I have no vested interest at Sams, save that of being a customer of my local for 35+ years. But as a working Human Resources Manager, I became appalled by how my pub manager and his wife were being treated by Humphrey (and ultimately sacked) in the most unfair, illegal and discriminatory way for not reducing their staff hours. So I tried to not just offer them moral support, but also some pretty basic employment law advice in how to take on Humphrey - and their Tribunal claim is one of those coming up in early March. It was through this local involvement with my pub manager that I became aware of this site, and started to offer contributions and observations.

I've worked with and for directors like Humphrey. In my experience, their basic insecurity and incompetence generally causes them to behave like intimidatory bullies, they have self delusions of grandeur, and think themselves above the law - which of course they are not. But for every ten people they abuse, most will moan and complain but be too frightened for their job to do anything about it - only a tiny minority will take them on and win. Perhaps if more people published their success in this way on the site, it might encourage more to do the same. I'm quite happy to offer impartial employment law advice at a distance to anyone who is threatened by Humphrey, and have already made that offer publicly on the site.

I think it's inevitable that Humphrey and his cronies may well be monitoring the site, and it's quite possible that they have a "plant" on there to put their point of view - but I doubt it. But even if it is the case, Admin seems to be on top of protecting the integrity of the site and the anonymity of its users, and in the worst case scenario of identities being revealed, I can't see how it could make Humphrey's behaviour any worse than it already is.

It's time he was publicly taken on, and exposed for the illegal, bullying and discriminatory ways in which he treats some, if not all, of his managers.

[alibo]

talking of bullying, id like to thank (sic) mr smith for the demise of a very honest caring man who wouldnt do harm to anyone, my mate was sectioned this week due to the way humph treated him. he has caused him to have a breakdown. his wife and family are devastated as are we all. perhaps you would like to visit him humph so he can thank you in person, the excercise might do you  both good 

[Max]

talking of bullying, id like to thank (sic) mr smith for the demise of a very honest caring man who wouldnt do harm to anyone, my mate was sectioned this week due to the way humph treated him. he has caused him to have a breakdown. his wife and family are devastated as are we all. perhaps you would like to visit him humph so he can thank you in person, the exercise might do you  both good 

I'm very saddened to hear about your friend. Let's hope in one way or another, justice can be brought about.

Also, this really should mean, that more than ever before, anyone being treated unfairly or illegally, need to be posting on this website. Word needs to be spread about the existence of this site to all new (and vulnerable) managers.

I'm waiting for a few more similar posts (possibly to do with minimum wages to managers), to do an exclusive expose' to one of the national newspapers, who have already expressed an interest.

Meanwhile, I've created a calculator so that managers with accommodation, can see if they are being paid the minimal legal amount, when the maximum financial deduction for accommodation (as stated by law) has been taken in to consideration.

LAUNCH CALCULATOR HERE

There is also a Poll on the site, where you can anonymously tell all how your wage fairs up here

[centurion]

 :)Perhaps a word with HM Revenue & Customs may help

[Max]

Perhaps a word with HM Revenue & Customs may help

A valid point! If the managers are being short-changed in the pay department - then the Inland Revenue are losing out too! And I don't think they're going to like that. 

[centurion]

i wonder if the Inland Revenue are aware that SS have instructed their managers to make a surplus of 5% by robbing the customers, i mean as members of the landed gentry surely they are paying tax on this extra revenue which is quiet substantial, im sure Her Majesty would be most interested 

[arwen]

YOU ONLY GET MONEY IF ITS A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, THEY PAID FOR MY SOLICITOR WHEN I PUT IN A GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE POISONED DWARF,AND HE COULD ONLY ADVISE ME. HUMPHREY SMITH WOULDNT EVEN LET HIM TALK WHEN WE WENT TO BREWERY TO THE MEETING. AND ONCE F.O.B CHAIRED HIS OWN GRIEVANCE MEETING WITH ME AND I ASKED HIM WHO WOULD ARBITRATE THE MEETING AND HE SAID HE WOULD, IT WAS LAUGHABLE. WELL IT WASNT THEN FOR ME. AND HE DECIDED THAT HE WAS RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG.IF YOU TAKE THEM TO TRIBUNAL YOU HAVE TO PAY YOURSELF. AND I WOULD LIKE SAY TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH HELL WITH SAMS, THERE IS LIFE AFTER SAM SMITHS, I STILL LIKE THE BEER THOUGH X  AND IT WAS HIS FATHER THAT PUT THAT FUND IN PLACE HE MUST HAVE SEEN IT COMING X

[Mr Zak]

The fund isn't much help if all it does is line the pockets of Humphrey's own solicitors. Equally, it appears from the above experience, and the experiences of my ex pub manager, that Sam's internal grievance and disciplinary procedures are at best a joke, at worst highly illegal. For example, your grievance can not be heard by the person that you are complaining about, and an appeal against a decision can not be heard by the person who made the original decision.

But it's worth bearing in mind a couple of points when applying to an Employment Tribunal:

Firstly, it's important that you have exhausted all the internal procedures, no matter how sham they are. Indeed, Sam's are shooting themselves in the foot, as a Tribunal is at liberty to increase an award by up to 50% at their discretion, if it can be shown that the correct internal procedures were not followed by the employer - the law requires that there are certain very explicit procedures that must be followed.

Secondly, it costs nothing to apply to a Tribunal providing the claim is believed to be genuine and not "frivolous" or "vexatious". In extremely rare cases, a Tribunal can award costs against the applicant if the claim is judged to be so. Plenty of free advice is available from ACAS, the Citizens Advice Bureau or even me (at a distance!). Some law firms will offer a free first hour of consultation, but try to steer clear of the "no win, no fee" ambulance chasers who regularly advertise on TV and in the press. Also, for modest cost, available elsewhere on this site, membership of a trade union guarantees you "free" representation.

So if you have been unfairly treated, have reasonable evidence of the same, and are sure of your FACTS - go for it and at least have the pleasure of seeing Humphrey having to dig deep into his pockets....