I work in Liverpool city centre, whilst reading your original message I thought someone had wrote this about me. I do the exact same eat lunch at a desk check toilets plus all the rest.. I can't get holidays when I want because no one else can do this job, I even had an appointment with the doctor last week that I had to cancel. So yes their are plenty of companies out there doing the same for little pay.
Security guard doing non security duties for static security money.
- Thread starter IrishRookie
- Start date
IrishRookie
Longterm Registered User
Do you change light bulbs, file and order the Facility managers dockets from contractors, check the PH levels of the cooling tower water, check the chemical levels of the building water system, use the building management system to ensure the plant is running ok?
If so, do you think that it is acceptable for a security guard to do all this non security work for no extra pay?
Last edited:
Just had a though about what you could start doing - slacking
not at the security stuff, but at everything else.
they expect you to do some paperwork or something by a certain time, take a few extra days - because its not your job.
dont change the lightbulbs though, have you been trained to go up a ladder and change a lightbulb? - probably not, then its against the HASAWA
Same with checking chemical levels - whoa chemicals, why the heck you doing anything to do with chemicals (probably is just tiny little amounts) but again your not trained to.
Me personally, if I'm being made to do extra thing, things outside my job, not getting paid extra then I would be a complete arse about it - get fired - employment tribunal
not at the security stuff, but at everything else.
they expect you to do some paperwork or something by a certain time, take a few extra days - because its not your job.
dont change the lightbulbs though, have you been trained to go up a ladder and change a lightbulb? - probably not, then its against the HASAWA
Same with checking chemical levels - whoa chemicals, why the heck you doing anything to do with chemicals (probably is just tiny little amounts) but again your not trained to.
Me personally, if I'm being made to do extra thing, things outside my job, not getting paid extra then I would be a complete arse about it - get fired - employment tribunal
Try and keep up and refrain from giving inacurate advice. The company he guards at can get rid of him any time they want.Me personally, if I'm being made to do extra thing, things outside my job, not getting paid extra then I would be a complete arse about it - get fired - employment tribunal
IrishRookie
Longterm Registered User
The company I guard can request a replacement for me and this would most likely lead to my security company moving me to a different site, but that wouldn't mean I would be sacked.
I understand that. My comments were aimed at pyrene who obviously does not.
I was referring to tribunal if they just got rid of him as in sacked - the question will get asked as to "why are you firing me" answer "you won't do the work expected of you by the client" response "and was that work outside the contracted work I have signed to work?" Unfair dismissal aint it?
Yes it is BUT only in the circumstances YOU have outlined which have no resemblance to those outlined by the OP. The OP does not work for the company he is guarding. That company can ask for him to be replaced at any time. He is not being dismissed, just moved, by the security firm that pays he's wages.
Maybe you didn't read all the thread, especially post #24?
Rhea, I'm far from an expert on employment law, far from an expert on anything really.
But I feel there is a case for protection under employment law.
His sole work/working day is for this one company, via his employer.
He has one role, there is no other worker covering that role.
He has worked there for a substancial time.
As with a self employed worker, if his sole full time commitment is to one employer only, they are afforded, employed status.
also they are expected to convert to PAYE, from what I remember.
On the face of it, such a person, 'might' be afforded employed status in the loosest terms.
I'm sure I remember such a case involving Ealing Council, with a call centre temp employee who had worked the same task for two years, and was given certain benefits offered to full time directly employed workers.
A bit vague, but I'm sure that was the bones of the case.
But I feel there is a case for protection under employment law.
His sole work/working day is for this one company, via his employer.
He has one role, there is no other worker covering that role.
He has worked there for a substancial time.
As with a self employed worker, if his sole full time commitment is to one employer only, they are afforded, employed status.
also they are expected to convert to PAYE, from what I remember.
On the face of it, such a person, 'might' be afforded employed status in the loosest terms.
I'm sure I remember such a case involving Ealing Council, with a call centre temp employee who had worked the same task for two years, and was given certain benefits offered to full time directly employed workers.
A bit vague, but I'm sure that was the bones of the case.
Neither am I. I just know what I know and if I am unsure I look it up so I only post reliable advice. I would be than happy for others to say I am wrong.
But surely if you, and don't mean just you, are going to say something like that then you must be able to back it up with some sort of legislation. With someone like pyrene it can be dismissed quite easily but when someone as respected as you (know idea why
) says something it can sometimes be taken as fact.This guy is not self employed and here are different rules for those that are. Not sure they are offered "employed status" but from what you then add, if this guy was self employed and worked at this one and only place for 3 years ( or considerably less) then HMRC would want him to be classed as employed. Many people work like this but in reality should not.
I have done a quick google and cannot find the case but I too think I vaguely remember it although wasn't it to do with her rights to use a certain bathroom or something that was only for use by full time employees?
Late last year new regs came into force regarding agency workers (I realise that the OP doesn't like that term but I think that is what he is even though he is an employee of the security company), who have been at the same place for more than 12 weeks. These only change some basic rules, like the same pay as full employees, use of facilities and the right to apply for any job vacancies. It did not include the right to redundancy pay or the right not to be just got rid of.
BUT he does have those rights with the security firm that employs him and pays him.
your rights: agency workers - from workSMART.org.uk
Thanks Rhea.
That certainly puts some clarity into this murky wishing well.
Wishing that arseholes such as the building manager, didn't push their luck.
Wishing that the security firm bosses had a back bone and stuck up for the guys who give them their reputation.
And the employers directors who should recognise and reward a job well done.
Wishing for a brave new world, were effort is rewarded, and fairness is a principle applied.
Reality strikes hard though and is often disappointing.
How ever, there's no harm in wishing.
That certainly puts some clarity into this murky wishing well.
Wishing that arseholes such as the building manager, didn't push their luck.
Wishing that the security firm bosses had a back bone and stuck up for the guys who give them their reputation.
And the employers directors who should recognise and reward a job well done.
Wishing for a brave new world, were effort is rewarded, and fairness is a principle applied.
Reality strikes hard though and is often disappointing.
How ever, there's no harm in wishing.
And all together now............
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bloomin' shame?
You'll have 'em crying in the streets with that one.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bloomin' shame?
You'll have 'em crying in the streets with that one.
IrishRookie
Longterm Registered User
An update on the situation, the facility manager has called the security company director to discuss a pay raise for me, with 50% coming from his company and 50% coming from my company, the security director of the company has refused but on the insistence of the FM he is now considering it.
The impression I get is that the director is not pushed on the idea at all and will most likely refuse it early next week.
He didn't even have the back bone to make a representation on my behalf himself even after he assured me he would a few weeks ago. Now he is apparently "disappointed" that I would say such a thing to the client...even though he himself and my manager told me to do it???
The impression I get is that the director is not pushed on the idea at all and will most likely refuse it early next week.
He didn't even have the back bone to make a representation on my behalf himself even after he assured me he would a few weeks ago. Now he is apparently "disappointed" that I would say such a thing to the client...even though he himself and my manager told me to do it???
If you do remember, I did tell you to document, confirm and record everything.
I remember a director at Heron, who when ever he had a face to face with Gerald Ronson.
He would go back to his office, type up the conversation, agreed action, and conclusion, then send it to gerald, with a 'read notice' on it.
That way Mr Ronson could never deny he had said or agreed an item, something he was known to do, quite frequently.
Denial happens all the way up to the top, and is a frequently used defence. Not just a river in Egypt.
However there's progress and some lea way there.
keep on top of it.
hearts and minds IR, hearts and minds.
Send a note to each of those concerned thanking them for their efforts, and assuring them that you know as good men they will do right by you and the situation,
and in turn, you will reward their faith and trust in equal measure. etc, etc.
I remember a director at Heron, who when ever he had a face to face with Gerald Ronson.
He would go back to his office, type up the conversation, agreed action, and conclusion, then send it to gerald, with a 'read notice' on it.
That way Mr Ronson could never deny he had said or agreed an item, something he was known to do, quite frequently.
Denial happens all the way up to the top, and is a frequently used defence. Not just a river in Egypt.
However there's progress and some lea way there.
keep on top of it.
hearts and minds IR, hearts and minds.
Send a note to each of those concerned thanking them for their efforts, and assuring them that you know as good men they will do right by you and the situation,
and in turn, you will reward their faith and trust in equal measure. etc, etc.
Last edited:
IrishRookie
Longterm Registered User
Yes you did OJ, and it was good advice which to my shame I didn't fully enact, but from this moment forward everything will be documented, dated, recorded and confirmed, I was trusting that the man in question was honourable but I was obviously naive in that respect.
I have a good personal relationship with the FM and to be honest, only for his representation on my behalf to my own company I probably would have been continually fobbed off until I left the job or caused major friction with the client by refusing to do the non contractual work.
It's a learning experience, if nothing else.
I have a good personal relationship with the FM and to be honest, only for his representation on my behalf to my own company I probably would have been continually fobbed off until I left the job or caused major friction with the client by refusing to do the non contractual work.
It's a learning experience, if nothing else.
Maybe speak to the FM and see if he can find a similar position, with similar duties, but with a different title for you, but directly employed by the office company.
It's an option, especially if your current company proves themselves to lack honour, and loyalty.
It's a two way street that loyalty thing, but many employers think it's just one way and one way only.
It's an option, especially if your current company proves themselves to lack honour, and loyalty.
It's a two way street that loyalty thing, but many employers think it's just one way and one way only.
IrishRookie
Longterm Registered User
Hearts and minds email sent, thanks for the advice.
As for asking the FM about working for the property management company direct, I have discussed this with him but his concerns are that if we done that they would have no one to cover me for holidays and if I was to become sick.
Whereas with he security company cover is always guaranteed.
As for asking the FM about working for the property management company direct, I have discussed this with him but his concerns are that if we done that they would have no one to cover me for holidays and if I was to become sick.
Whereas with he security company cover is always guaranteed.
Last edited: