Help with staff canteen...
Discussion
I'd imagine the practice of compulsory deduction is contrary to the Truck Acts
Jarcy said:
Completely off topic, haven't seen that in a while brilliant thank you. 
Thanks everybody for all the advice.
She has now written to the company that provides the food and they have replied stating that essentially they are under no obligation to try to segregate foods either in prep or in serving so even if they told her that there were no nuts in the recipe they couldn't rule out any cross contamination. He pretty much said that the canteen wasn't suitable for someone with allergies. He also said that he would be happy to attend a meeting with HR to discuss further
So, to HR it is going! I will show her the bits of legislation that have been mentioned and the advice of you all which has been pretty much in line with what I have been saying. I am going to tell her to question why there is discrimination within her organisation, as if they refuse to alter her wages then everybody else is getting rewarded more for their work and she is excluded due to health concerns. It's clearly ludicrous and I would love to hear somebodies answer trying to justify that position.
As many people have said, what we want out of this is for them to remove the deduction and she will provide her own lunch. We're not after compensation or special treatment of allergy sufferers, just to end the current situation of her losing her lunch allowance to pay for this service. Before she was paid £100 a month extra to pay for lunches and it's the withdrawal of this that pays for the canteen, the fact that it was an allowance before is what makes us wonder if it doesn't qualify as a deduction.
Sorry that was probably a ramble, I'm tired and probably not making much sense!
She has now written to the company that provides the food and they have replied stating that essentially they are under no obligation to try to segregate foods either in prep or in serving so even if they told her that there were no nuts in the recipe they couldn't rule out any cross contamination. He pretty much said that the canteen wasn't suitable for someone with allergies. He also said that he would be happy to attend a meeting with HR to discuss further
So, to HR it is going! I will show her the bits of legislation that have been mentioned and the advice of you all which has been pretty much in line with what I have been saying. I am going to tell her to question why there is discrimination within her organisation, as if they refuse to alter her wages then everybody else is getting rewarded more for their work and she is excluded due to health concerns. It's clearly ludicrous and I would love to hear somebodies answer trying to justify that position.
As many people have said, what we want out of this is for them to remove the deduction and she will provide her own lunch. We're not after compensation or special treatment of allergy sufferers, just to end the current situation of her losing her lunch allowance to pay for this service. Before she was paid £100 a month extra to pay for lunches and it's the withdrawal of this that pays for the canteen, the fact that it was an allowance before is what makes us wonder if it doesn't qualify as a deduction.
Sorry that was probably a ramble, I'm tired and probably not making much sense!
freecar said:
As many people have said, what we want out of this is for them to remove the deduction and she will provide her own lunch. We're not after compensation or special treatment of allergy sufferers, just to end the current situation of her losing her lunch allowance to pay for this service. Before she was paid £100 a month extra to pay for lunches and it's the withdrawal of this that pays for the canteen, the fact that it was an allowance before is what makes us wonder if it doesn't qualify as a deduction.
This bit... choose your words carefully here... it looks like she hasn't been deducted £100 a month, they have removed a £100 a month perk and said that to all staff there is a free canteen.Is the £100 a month food perk in her contract or is it just that... a perk they used to give staff?
Would be very wary about starting something up with HR demanding stuff over a freebie that used to be there, but is now no longer around. On one hand you never know they might accommodate her, or they could just say tough... its a discretionary perk, we have now decided to remove it at our discretion.
They are probably not going to please 100% of the people with this free canteen, someone can't eat this, someone can't eat that... someone doesnt like the menu, etc, etc...
As I said see if its in the contract before rocking the boat.
As we speak I am going through a new menu detailing allergens for exactly the scenario you describe. If the company is big enough to have a mandatory canteen then they should be employing professional caterers not a bunch of, what sound like, cowboys.
I'm sure their local EHP would take a very dim view of this in terms of food safety.
I'm sure their local EHP would take a very dim view of this in terms of food safety.
Du1point8 said:
This bit... choose your words carefully here... it looks like she hasn't been deducted £100 a month, they have removed a £100 a month perk and said that to all staff there is a free canteen.
Is the £100 a month food perk in her contract or is it just that... a perk they used to give staff?
Would be very wary about starting something up with HR demanding stuff over a freebie that used to be there, but is now no longer around. On one hand you never know they might accommodate her, or they could just say tough... its a discretionary perk, we have now decided to remove it at our discretion.
They are probably not going to please 100% of the people with this free canteen, someone can't eat this, someone can't eat that... someone doesnt like the menu, etc, etc...
As I said see if its in the contract before rocking the boat.
Excellent advice I think......Is the £100 a month food perk in her contract or is it just that... a perk they used to give staff?
Would be very wary about starting something up with HR demanding stuff over a freebie that used to be there, but is now no longer around. On one hand you never know they might accommodate her, or they could just say tough... its a discretionary perk, we have now decided to remove it at our discretion.
They are probably not going to please 100% of the people with this free canteen, someone can't eat this, someone can't eat that... someone doesnt like the menu, etc, etc...
As I said see if its in the contract before rocking the boat.
freecar said:
She has now written to the company that provides the food and they have replied stating that essentially they are under no obligation to try to segregate foods either in prep or in serving so even if they told her that there were no nuts in the recipe they couldn't rule out any cross contamination. He pretty much said that the canteen wasn't suitable for someone with allergies. He also said that he would be happy to attend a meeting with HR to discuss further
Except their is a legal requirement to label."On 13 December 2014, new legislation (the EU Food Information for Consumers Regulation No. 1169/2011) came into force which requires food businesses to provide allergy information on food sold unpackaged, in for example catering outlets, deli counters, bakeries and sandwich bars. Guidance has been developed to help businesses meet these new requirements and this page will continue to be updated as more support tools are made available. - See more at: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/allergy-...
So id guess they are blanket labelling?
Du1point8 said:
freecar said:
As many people have said, what we want out of this is for them to remove the deduction and she will provide her own lunch. We're not after compensation or special treatment of allergy sufferers, just to end the current situation of her losing her lunch allowance to pay for this service. Before she was paid £100 a month extra to pay for lunches and it's the withdrawal of this that pays for the canteen, the fact that it was an allowance before is what makes us wonder if it doesn't qualify as a deduction.
This bit... choose your words carefully here... it looks like she hasn't been deducted £100 a month, they have removed a £100 a month perk and said that to all staff there is a free canteen.Is the £100 a month food perk in her contract or is it just that... a perk they used to give staff?
Would be very wary about starting something up with HR demanding stuff over a freebie that used to be there, but is now no longer around. On one hand you never know they might accommodate her, or they could just say tough... its a discretionary perk, we have now decided to remove it at our discretion.
They are probably not going to please 100% of the people with this free canteen, someone can't eat this, someone can't eat that... someone doesnt like the menu, etc, etc...
As I said see if its in the contract before rocking the boat.
1. It is not unlawful for the employer to make a deduction from wages in respect of the supply of food, so long as the deduction is agreed in writing in advance. Note, however, that the amount deducted for food cannot be counted for the purposes of meeting the minimum wage threshold. So, if the amount of pay left after the deduction is below minimum wage, the employer is acting unlawfully.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nmwmanual/NMWM11130...
https://www.gov.uk/understanding-your-pay/deductio...
2. If the allergy amounts to a disability, as it probably does, the employer must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the allergy. A severe nut allergy was held to be a disability by an employment tribunal in Wheeldon v Marston (2013). This is not a decision that binds other tribunals, but it may be persuasive.
3. Removal of a contractual benefit would usually be a breach of contract. Was the perk contractual or discretionary?
OP, your fiancee should raise a grievance about this matter and ask that she be allowed to bring in her own food.
More generally, this is yet another thread showing the revival of old fashioned employment culture, with employees treated as serfs rather than staff. Many workers should re-unionise to resist this culture.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nmwmanual/NMWM11130...
https://www.gov.uk/understanding-your-pay/deductio...
2. If the allergy amounts to a disability, as it probably does, the employer must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the allergy. A severe nut allergy was held to be a disability by an employment tribunal in Wheeldon v Marston (2013). This is not a decision that binds other tribunals, but it may be persuasive.
3. Removal of a contractual benefit would usually be a breach of contract. Was the perk contractual or discretionary?
OP, your fiancee should raise a grievance about this matter and ask that she be allowed to bring in her own food.
More generally, this is yet another thread showing the revival of old fashioned employment culture, with employees treated as serfs rather than staff. Many workers should re-unionise to resist this culture.
freecar said:
...
She has now written to the company that provides the food and they have replied stating that essentially they are under no obligation to try to segregate foods either in prep or in serving so even if they told her that there were no nuts in the recipe they couldn't rule out any cross contamination. He pretty much said that the canteen wasn't suitable for someone with allergies. He also said that he would be happy to attend a meeting with HR to discuss further
...
The employer needs to update itself and its contractor on the employer's obligations to disabled people.She has now written to the company that provides the food and they have replied stating that essentially they are under no obligation to try to segregate foods either in prep or in serving so even if they told her that there were no nuts in the recipe they couldn't rule out any cross contamination. He pretty much said that the canteen wasn't suitable for someone with allergies. He also said that he would be happy to attend a meeting with HR to discuss further
...
Breadvan72 said:
More generally, this is yet another thread showing the revival of old fashioned employment culture, with employees treated as serfs rather than staff. Many workers should re-unionise to resist this culture.
I've found its more a case of people allowing themselves to be treated as serfs, you are right about the old fashioned employment culture though but I believe it self inflicted. Union or no union people need to understand their rights and how to approach actioning them.This issue though while approaching from a employment perspective is the right thing to do. The more 'shotgun to crack a walnut' approach would be HSE and Trading Standards...
Any zealous EHP would love to get their teeth into this. As a minimum they must display allergens contained in food if trained staff are not serving and able to advise consumers.
Easy to say but the reality is that if you piss your employer off, they might not be your employer for long.
Easy to say but the reality is that if you piss your employer off, they might not be your employer for long.
Breadvan72 said:
More generally, this is yet another thread showing the revival of old fashioned employment culture, with employees treated as serfs rather than staff. Many workers should re-unionise to resist this culture.
There's been talk of all the proffessional staff where I work joining a union recently. People who 1 year ago would not have entertained the idea are now talking about it seriously. Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff