Banned from Venue with no reason.

[Ynot]

In terms of local authority precedents, anyone who has a fairly regular rota pattern (say one gig a week/fortnight) is more than casual. It works retrospetively, so say, look at shift pattern over last 12 months. These people are then classified as temporary part-time.

 

With us, our "casuals" (who fall into the above category and are actually temporary part-timers) have to request time off in advance of the rota being published. Otherwise they are expected to work.

 

We have other "casuals", like Ynot, who work one shift a month (or whatever) who we call up and ask if they can work a particular shift.

 

The fact that StephenC racked up an excess of hours tells me he was more than a casual.

 

I remain unsure on that point.

I would have thought that to be classed as a part-timer you would have prescribed hours each week - which may or may not be flexible. And as a part timer you wouldn't necessarily have the choice of whether to work those hours... maybe some choice on which shifts, perhaps, but constrained by the fact that 'x' hours a week was your basic.

 

And to be classed as part-time you'd have a fixed contract which states that.

 

Casuals, as I mentioned, can (and probably, like me, do) have the option of saying no. Because I suspect that casuals may have fingers in other pies which might prevent them from taking the call - like me - I have my day job.

[rooftop]

Well to fill in the rest of the picture, we then have:

 

- permanent part-time - contracted to work x hours per week.

 

- permanent with annualised hours - self explanatory.

 

In terms of how the temporary part-timers (casuals) are rota'd, it is very much a case of they give a list of availability (for example, only available evenings) and the rota is plotted around them. They can then be expected to work evenings, unless they book the time off in advance.

 

There is a difference in terms of employment law for them in that they have more rights, such as pro-rata sick pay, maternity, redundancy, etc. And perhaps most relevant here is that you can't just strike them off the rota without good reason and fair disciplinary process.

[Ynot]

Well to fill in the rest of the picture, we then have:

 

- permanent part-time - contracted to work x hours per week.

 

- permanent with annualised hours - self explanatory.

 

In terms of how the temporary part-timers (casuals) are rota'd, it is very much a case of they give a list of availability (for example, only available evenings) and the rota is plotted around them. They can then be expected to work evenings, unless they book the time off in advance.

 

There is a difference in terms of employment law for them in that they have more rights, such as pro-rata sick pay, maternity, redundancy, etc. And perhaps most relevant here is that you can't just strike them off the rota without good reason and fair disciplinary process.

Hmm...

 

But surely that's my point - if they have allotted hours, which are presiumably a specific number of hours each week, then they can't actually be classed as casual...?

Part timers, yes, casuals, I believe not.

 

It may be a mix-up of terminology, but that's how I see it.

[drsound]

According to our research with our solicitor when we came to writing new contracts this year there is no such thing as a casual employee. I must admit I found this surprising as I'd come across a large number of people describing themselves a casuals in our industry but it is the case. I did find a very helpful guide on one of the government websites explaining why casual employment doesn't exist but typically I can't locate it now. Uncle Google does however furnish lots of interesting information.

 

There's also a distinction between an 'employee' and a 'worker' but I can't remember right now why that was relevant.

 

I think the type of contract to which you might be referring would be a 'zero hours' contract. This is a contract under which the employer is not obliged to offer any work to the employee and the employee is not obliged to do any work until the employer offers an assignment and the employee accepts it. Then the employee is obliged to carry out the work and the employer to provide it for the duration of the assignment - this could be three hours on one day or 40 hours a week for several years.

 

This is a very common contract type in industries such as ours and Local Authorities love 'em. They're used extensively for agency employees such as cleaners, painters, electricians etc etc as it allows the LA (or other employer) to have people on the payroll who will work as and when needed (in fact the contract is often known as an 'as and when' contract).

[Rob_Beech]

Let's remember that the OP hasn't posted any more in this thread. Or indeed any. Though they have been back to the forum.

[Guest lightnix]

True. The OP came back after Bryson's post, but has not returned since. Any discussion on the type of contract he was on and any rights he may have enjoyed under it, can therefore only be speculation - unless he chooses to return and fill us in. Even then, it would be pretty academic IMO, because the incident which started all this off happened two years ago.

 

Apart from that, there are too many unanswered questions for sound advice to be offered. I have to agree though, with those who feel this situation could have been better handled and from where I'm sitting, there's a faint whiff of burning martyr about the OP's post :D

 

My €0.02...

 

I feel it's disingenuous of the OP to say that he has been banned for "No Reason". There was a reason.

 

If the council concerned had a working time policy in place, then I cannot see how they would have knowingly scheduled the OP to work hours, which would have already been deemed as "unsafe". I can only assume therefore, that the OP did the hours off his own back and in doing so, ignored a Health & Safety policy, designed to protect himself and his co-workers ;)

 

It's a pity that the OP could not see any other way to negotiate, other than to say, "Pay up or I flounce". It's a downright shame that, having flounced, he then chose to write a sh1tty little letter to everybody - except the Technical Director with whom he'd actually had the dispute - in an attempt to garner sympathy and (possibly) foment unrest among his former colleagues. We will probably never know the exact content of that letter; but whether it was libellous or not, it can only have served to undermine the position of the TD and further escalate the situation.

 

I'm not sure whether grovelling and eating humble pie will have any effect now. Any apology at this stage might be seen as insincere and a blatant piece of backpedalling - done solely in order to keep the current gig - rather than through any genuine feelings of remorse for the hurt previously caused. If I were in the OP's shoes, I'd consider getting a subbie in for this date of the tour and then talking to the venue afterwards, about what amends (if any) can be made for the future.

[robloxley]

WRT employee/worker/self-employed and temporary/casual etc. discussion:

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Und...ent/DG_10027916

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Und...yment/DG_175241

[Dave]

I'm not sure how much value there is in doing this one to death if the OP isn't willing to contribute. To be honest, it sounds like a young lad handling a situation badly and being hit by the blowback.

 

I had to deal with a similar problem a few years. I was TM for a show and a local contact recommended an SM who used to work in the venue. I interviewed the SM and he seemed fine and we said we'd use him. A couple of weeks later I found out from another contact that he'd been a permanent employee at the venue but got sacked for misconduct and wasn't welcome there. This put us in a very difficult situation and in the end we decided to use a different SM. Whilst contractually the venue couldn't have objected, they were being very helpful to us and the show's promoter and we concluded that we didn't want to annoy them. We'd only made a verbal agreement with the SM and he didn't get too upset when we cancelled him. If he did get nasty, we could have claimed he withheld a material fact. But I learned one important lesson - always ask someone if they've had any previous employment problems.

[oli]

Have followed this thread and am surprised no one has picked up on this...

 

As a licensed premises the Manager is allowed to bar anyone they like and does not have to give a reason, the only time this could ever be challenged is if the Manager is found to be discriminatory against a certain group of people (racism, disabled etc).

By sending those emails/complaining you have caused a nuisance, in the eyes of the venue, and therefore are probably classed as a high risk person.

 

My 2p... :blink:

[Sound In Gloucestershire]

I also sent in am email to all technicians and the Artistic Director explaining why I was not coming in any more

 

surely this counts as a resignation, so there isnt any legal points on being fired?

[Bryson]

Depending on the exact wording, it could indeed be interpreted as resignation.

[Brian]

As a licensed premises the Manager is allowed to bar anyone they like and does not have to give a reason, ...

Sorry but completely misses the point.

[benash]

As a licensed premises the Manager is allowed to bar anyone they like and does not have to give a reason, ...

Sorry but completely misses the point.

Does it?

 

The OP's questions (insert imaginary question marks as appropriate) were:

Any advice on how I can get back into the theatre to do this show. Surely he can’t be the man who has all the power. Is there any thing I can do.

 

If oli is correct (and IANAL so I really don't know) then if the manager wants him out, he's out.

[Ynot]

As a licensed premises the Manager is allowed to bar anyone they like and does not have to give a reason, ...

Sorry but completely misses the point.

Does it?

Completely.

The ability of a manager/licensee to bar an individual has nothing to do with employees - casual or otherwise. That's there to give said manager protection against unrully or objectionable punters.

 

To 'bar' an employee, the management would need far stronger cause and evidence than simply that manager deciding that he didn't like the look of him/her or whatever.

[stagemanagement]

If this was a local authority venue, then THAT email is going to condradict the Authority's policies on "whistleblowing" (as the OP seems to imply he was doing, albeit misguidedly IMO); it's also going to have broken the general "chain of command" procedures that they would also have in place.

Therefore, the OP has no leg to stand on and the venue management are completely within there rights to refuse to admit him to the venue, regardless of the moralities involved either way.

 

Whether that presents a problem for a touring company using said venue is not really the venue's problem.

 

Personally, I have banned a guy from my venue who used to do regular work with the local Am-Drams. He wasn't happy, but given that he's not an employee and never has been, then I am well within my rights to do that and he can't do Jack Sh*t about it!