Company breaches employee’s contract so DWP threatens to sanction HIM


[Image: The Void.]

Here’s a fine wheeze being practised by a hotel here in Mid Wales:

It advertised a job in its kitchens – washing and cleaning. A friend of Yr Obdt Srvt applied but was refused; the manager offered it to a younger applicant because this meant paying lower wages.

The younger applicant very swiftly delivered ample proof that he wasn’t willing to get up in the morning, so the friend was offered the job instead, working 22 hours per week.

Before he actually started, he was advised that the job was now for 40 hours per week, which is not possible for him, for personal reasons. He had to decline the job on those terms.

The hotel then contacted Job Centre Plus, who told him he may be sanctioned for refusing to take an offer of work.

It’s bad enough that the DWP is looking for reasons to take people’s benefits away, but when employers corruptly change the jobs they’re offering in order to aid this process…

… It becomes sickening.

Your observations are welcome.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

18 thoughts on “Company breaches employee’s contract so DWP threatens to sanction HIM

  1. Jeffrey Davies

    i would have thought a job advertised has part time or so many hrs then changed to 40 would infact have been down right diabolicle of them to inform the jcp because of their false advertising but then its a ploy by some to get one off benefits its easy pezzy when the firms work hand in hand with the jcp getting em sanctioned jeff3

  2. HomerJS

    This illustrates yet another flaw in the whole scheme. Some people may be able to work, but will not be able to work full time. Yet I don’t see any recognition of this, particularly in the idea of making people job search for 35 hours a week!

  3. Rachel Blake

    This not only illustrates the evil sanctions threat but also compliance of some employers to mess up a persons life, catering and hospitality jobs are rife with breaches of employment rights( which in the main, they get away with, dreadful wages , unsocial hours etc, so it sadly does not surprise me , they would stoop to this anymore than the DWP’s woeful and cruel performance

  4. keltyk

    yes name and shame…

    ps- in a small community, it is possible the head chef is married to someone at local JCP who gets bonus points for stopping their benefits. There may not even be a job- it may be a stitch-up.

  5. Maria Muller

    The other scam that has been used in the past , before Blair and Cameron was free trials ….if someone really didn’t go along with it …they’d be sanctioned as the #DWP would say they hadn’t given the job a chance and were seemingly ” work shy ” ….laughable as it sounds ! …a sanction would have been for 6 weeks or so , not as severe as the ones now and the American three strikes and you are out punitive nonsense … ironically the something of the night …Michael ” Dracula ” Howard wanted that during the Major government for criminals , it’s ” interesting ” .

    As for the breach of contract that you have written about and would be laughed out of any employment tribunal …… so many laws and rules have been broken ( UKIP and the hard right Tories would see this as ” red tape ” destroying enterprise and jobs )

    …I would hazard a guess that the Minister for Welfare ” Reform ” Lord Fraud …whoops sorry !…Freud is cracking the whip ……..he wants people to be ” self sufficient ” ….not relying on welfare top ups like tax credits ….they would deem 40 hrs to be self sufficient ….it’s a very curious fudged mix of the Wisconsin model where people’s unemployment and poverty is supposedly their own fault due to apparent laziness and the Pre Victorian Eugenics model …with the various degrees of ” deficient ” stock …and they have to be taught a lesson for their apparent own good ….the changing of the relationship between the job centre claimant and the state according to our favourite comedy toff .

    Osborne was banging on about / alluding to all this at CPC14 in his condescending , fake paternal , Harry Enfield Tory Boy way on Monday ….there was a moronic debate about this on BBC Five Live afterwards .

    The Speccie did a article on IDS saying some of his ideas were in actuality left wing utopian ones …which proves some can be so far to the right that you meet the other side round the back …..politics going round in circles ….it’s the small state for some but the big state for those that they and Daily Mail editors disapprove of .

    Obviously managers are solely interested in targets and impressing more senior managers up the DWP / UKJCP food chain . As for the poor individual that has been ” taught ” a very perverse and underhand ” moral lesson ” …he / she needs a solicitor / Barrister to play the DWP at it’s own game by throwing the rule book at it …in short calling its bluff .

  6. Jim Round

    No problem, I’m sure a new immigrant will step in, who will then be “stealing all our jobs” whilst very few question the employers themselves.
    This is just a grain of sand in a beach of the same problems.
    It proves points I have made previously and I am yet to hear a workable soloution.

  7. thelovelywibblywobblyoldlady

    Someone said to me once that when I retaliate I do it like Israel…. so here’s my advice; ring ACAS and report the employer for breaches of employment legislation.
    Then call the HMRC hotline (details on the website) and state that you think the employer is under declaring profits (on the grounds that he is advertising the job as 22 hours when in fact it is 40 hours) in an attempt to secure a pecuniary advantage because he will only be remitting tax and possibly NI based on 22 hours. Also advise them that he is in breacg of regulation 68 of the Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 – possible failure to deduct, remit, record and report the correct deduction and that as this is a wilful action, Schedule 39 of the Finance Act 2008 refers and as a result HMRC can go back 20 years to recover any under deductions!

  8. Jenny hambidge

    I think those of us living in the same town know who you are talking about Mike.Could it be the one which has imported foreign workers for years and exploited them ,maybe..?

  9. AM-FM

    If you’re sure it was like that, then name and shame.

    Assuming the JC didn’t send you after that one particular job, If an employer does say that the answer is:
    “Go ahead, but the JC might be a bit confused as I’m not on any benefits, also you might find yourself with a bit of a DPA problem”

    1. AM-FM

      It doesn’t matter if he’s on benefits or not, you can still say the same.

      Unless the JC sent him to that actual job, and might be after feedback etc.Then the applicants financial situation is absolutely none of the potential employer’s business.

      I think his chances of a sanction are quite low, the job was not as advertised.

      On the chance he does get sanctioned, let us know and some of us will post a few “special” reviews on the hotel.

  10. Pendantic Geek

    Report it to the police as applying duress to working conditions otherwise known as slavery. There is also a breach of the data protection act as his personal details were illegally passed to another agency without his consent.

Comments are closed.