The rule about offer and acceptance concerning offers of work

[LondonManc]

Don't bother he won't answer.

He can't get around the fact that with zero hours contracts you are employed at will so the employer can suddenly decide that you are surplus to requirements for the rest of the contract.

Well, there are two sides to it. One part is that you could be let go and the other side is that you could be benched indefinitely and simply forgotten about. The danger with the latter is that you can accrue holidays which need paying up at some point.

[window]

1.
‘LondonManc’ says

“What was the reason given for getting rid of you?”

They have noticed that I have a physical difference which made them believe that I was not suitable for the job and it is why they removed me from the project at the end of the project. However this is only prejudice because in the past experience has proven that if I am treated like the other I perform like the others or better. However this is not the more important point which is the terms of my contract

2.
‘LondonManc’ says

“Also, be very careful. You are probably seen as a worker rather than an employee. As such, you're entitled to nothing”

I was classed as a worker but as long as my grievance is concerned whether or not I am an employer or a worker it is irrelevant because what matters is the terms of the contract because there is no statutory definition of a zero hour contract

3.
‘northernladuk’ says

“Originally Posted by window
Concerning my numbering I use it for a question of clarity to separate any different points. I can use the 'quoting system' only if I have something to quote

Well in your last long one there appeared to be three quotes.. But anyway.. Carry on.”

In this long post I have three quotes but four points and it is why I used numbering.

4.
I am puzzled why ‘northernladuk’ does not like my numbering and called it stupid despite a numbering being good for clarity. There should certainly be a reason. I like psychology. I would like to understand why?

5.
The relevant point here is whether you agree with me that a so-called ‘zero hour contract’ could not a true zero hours contract if it does not contain a clause which says that the employer reserve the right withdraw offer of work for the reason explained in point 4 of my last long post?

[northernladuk]

1. Yes go for it

2. Yes we agree...

3. Yes you are correct

4. Oh no that's terrible, have a hug

Pick which ever of those you are actually looking to hear. HTH.

[LondonManc]

1.
‘LondonManc’ says

“What was the reason given for getting rid of you?”

They have noticed that I have a physical difference which made them believe that I was not suitable for the job and it is why they removed me from the project at the end of the project. However this is only prejudice because in the past experience has proven that if I am treated like the other I perform like the others or better. However this is not the more important point which is the terms of my contract

2.
‘LondonManc’ says

“Also, be very careful. You are probably seen as a worker rather than an employee. As such, you're entitled to nothing”

I was classed as a worker but as long as my grievance is concerned whether or not I am an employer or a worker it is irrelevant because what matters is the terms of the contract because there is no statutory definition of a zero hour contract

3.
‘northernladuk’ says

“Originally Posted by window
Concerning my numbering I use it for a question of clarity to separate any different points. I can use the 'quoting system' only if I have something to quote

Well in your last long one there appeared to be three quotes.. But anyway.. Carry on.”

In this long post I have three quotes but four points and it is why I used numbering.

4.
I am puzzled why ‘northernladuk’ does not like my numbering and called it stupid despite a numbering being good for clarity. There should certainly be a reason. I like psychology. I would like to understand why?

5.
The relevant point here is whether you agree with me that a so-called ‘zero hour contract’ could not a true zero hours contract if it does not contain a clause which says that the employer reserve the right withdraw offer of work for the reason explained in point 4 of my last long post?

Forget the rest and here's the actually only question I need an answer to. Were you on a zero-hour contract and have now had your contract with the client terminated? Yes/No

[window]

I was asked to sign a contract where it is stated at the top that it is a zero hours contract but a contract is not a zero hours contract simply because we call it a zero hours contract because there is no statutory definition of a zero hours contract. Hence in order a contract is what we consider as being a zero hours contract we need a clause which says that the employer has no obligation to offer work and the worker has no obligation to accept it. However if the party agree that work could be withdraw even if it has already been accepted there should be in the contract another clause which says that the employer reserved the right to withdraw offer of work at his discretion because of the principle of contract law on offer and acceptance.

My contract has not been terminated but contrary to the other casual workers I was removed from the project the first day what means that it is very unlikely that my employer offers me work again

[cojak]

I was asked to sign a contract where it is stated at the top that it is a zero hours contract but a contract is not a zero hours contract simply because we call it a zero hours contract because there is no statutory definition of a zero hours contract. Hence in order a contract is what we consider as being a zero hours contract we need a clause which says that the employer has no obligation to offer work and the worker has no obligation to accept it. However if the party agree that work could be withdraw even if it has already been accepted there should be in the contract another clause which says that the employer reserved the right to withdraw offer of work at his discretion because of the principle of contract law on offer and acceptance.

My contract has not been terminated but contrary to the other casual workers I was removed from the project the first day what means that it is very unlikely that my employer offers me work again

TL;DR - He wasn't terminated, just removed from the project.

[WTFH]

So he needs an employment lawyer to review his contract, not people on an Internet forum who are struggling to understand what he is trying to say since he jumps from facts straight into what his understanding of employment law, which seems muddled at best.

[LondonManc]

TL;DR - He wasn't terminated, just removed from the project.

Wow. I asked for a yes or no.

[LondonManc]

I was asked to sign a contract where it is stated at the top that it is a zero hours contract but a contract is not a zero hours contract simply because we call it a zero hours contract because there is no statutory definition of a zero hours contract. Hence in order a contract is what we consider as being a zero hours contract we need a clause which says that the employer has no obligation to offer work and the worker has no obligation to accept it. However if the party agree that work could be withdraw even if it has already been accepted there should be in the contract another clause which says that the employer reserved the right to withdraw offer of work at his discretion because of the principle of contract law on offer and acceptance.

My contract has not been terminated but contrary to the other casual workers I was removed from the project the first day what means that it is very unlikely that my employer offers me work again

Stop talking in riddles. Yes or no?

You signed a zero-hours contract however you try and dress it up - how many hours were you ACTUALLY asked to work? Not theoretically promised in an interview or casual chat. ACTUALLY asked to work.

[window]

I was asked to work seven hours per day during about two weeks that the project should have lasted

I say my contract is not a zero hours contract because in a zero hours contract it is understood that if a company offer work and it is accepted the company should have the right to cancel this offer of work. However because in my contract there is no a clause which says that my employer has the right to withdraw an offer of work my contract is not a true zero hours contract because the principle of ‘offer and acceptance’ in contract law as explained in my previous posts even if in its heading it is stated ‘zero hours contract’

In my contract it is made reference to the employer offering work and the casual worker accepting it so the the principle of ‘offer and acceptance’ of contract law applies

I could be incorrect in this case I would like you explain me why. For example you can explain me why my interpretation of the principle of ‘offer and acceptance’ of contract law could be wrong. It is what we called a discussion. After all this forum is about contracts and the principle of ‘offer and acceptance’ is very important in contract law