THIS TRANSCRIPT IS ISSUED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS TAKEN FROM A LIVE PROGRAMME AS IT WAS BROADCAST. THE NATURE OF LIVE BROADCASTING MEANS THAT NEITHER THE BBC NOR THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAMME CAN GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PRINTED HERE.

MONEY BOX LIVE

Presenter: Vincent Duggleby

Guests: Elaine Aarons, Dorothy Henderson, Rachel Hadwen

TRANSMISSION 26th NOV 2001 1500 - 1530 RADIO 4

ANNOUNCER : It's two minutes past three and time for MONEY BOX LIVE with Vincent Duggleby

DUGGLEBY: Good afternoon. On this Money Box Live we're talking about employment rights, with the emphasis on the financial consequences of redundancy and discrimination, breach of contract, maternity and paternity leave, shift and part time working, and benefits available to the lower paid. 08700 100 444 is the number for your calls.

The mountain of legislation increasingly driven by European directives is often blamed for stifling small business, but rights don't necessarily apply across the board - cases you read about in the newspapers may be the exception rather than the rule, and so called compensation culture may be as much the fault of bad employers as irresponsible employees. Nonetheless more rights are being established by employment tribunals and other courts - the latest concerning shift work for women with young children. What is also not in doubt is that short time working and job losses are on the increase. The talk is usually of streamlining or repositioning rather than outright sacking. Most large firms looks for voluntary redundancies and trade unions maybe able to negotiate more generous financial terms to cushion what is sometimes early retirement.

Age is one of the last areas of discrimination and this was the subject of a debate in the Commons last week on a bill proposed by Candy Atherton, the member for Falmouth and Cambourne who points out that a quarter of men in their 50s are out of the labour market so if you're in that position give us a ring. A wide ranging agenda for your questions whether you're an employee or running a small business, about to lose your job, or maybe hoping to return to work after maternity leave. The number again is 08700 100 444 and with me in the studio I have two solicitors, Dorothy Henderson, a partner with Travers Smith Braithwaite and Elaine Aarons, a partner with Eversheads and completing the panel from the Citizen's Advice Bureau, Rachel Hadwen who specialises in areas like Job Seeker's Allowance, Working Families Tax Credit, and other areas of the benefits system. And our first caller is Nick in London.

NICK: Hello

DUGGLEBY: Hello Nick

NICK: Hi. I've just been streamlined as you call it - today - I just heard

DUGGLEBY: Is that what they called it? - is that what they said?

NICK: No they actually call it restructuring.

DUGGLEBY: Restructuring - oh right, we'll have to do a little poll of what people have been told.

NICK: Well whatever it is, I've been sacked. It'll be effective from the end of this year. I'm a chartered surveyor. I'm 47 and I've worked for this company which is a big international company for about 12 years. This is part of a big scheme - there's about 10% of the overall workforce is going, so there's a lot of people like me going through this at the moment. My particular concern is that about 5 or 6 years ago I had a stress related breakdown I suppose you'd call it, and after that - the company were actually very good, they moved me from doing mainstream surveying work into a sort of administrative type job, and I was working - then started working part time 4 days a week and that's what I've been doing ever since.

DUGGLEBY: Can I stop you there because I just want to establish first of all with Dorothy Henderson the procedures that have to be gone through when a firm like this announces as Nick says a 10% redundancy programme - Dorothy?

HENDERSON: Right, well starting at the beginning on an individual basis what you're supposed to do is give your individual employees prior warning that it's likely to happen. If you're going through this process where there's a 10% cut in the overall workforce then you've got to select obviously who's going to go and it's important that you set up a good base of criteria that you're choosing the people on and that you apply that fairly so there's that process. But also if there are large numbers, I don't know how big this is, but you said it was quite large, so if you're presumably talking well over 20 and possibly up to 100 people going in total Nick?

NICK: Yes, the overall company - well in England it's about - the total company is about 7 or 800.

HENDERSON: Okay so they'll also be additional collective consultation discussions that have to take place with either unions or if there are no recognised unions involved then individual elected employee reps. So that overall is the sort of process that you should be going through.

DUGGLEBY: Right, but Nick's number's come up so Elaine - Nick's wondering whether it could have been possibly because he was medically felt not to be as able to pull his weight as much as some others?

AARONS: Yes, I can see that - building on what Dorothy said Nick I think the situation is that you need to look very carefully at the basis on which you were selected for redundancy because if that was related to your stress related breakdown then there maybe an issue under the Disability Discrimination Act. What you would have to do is establish in the first instance that you are disabled under the act and there's quite a specific definition of that, but mental impairment is included provided it's severe enough, and then you'd have to look at what the selection criteria were and see if there's a link between that and your previous breakdown.

DUGGLEBY: Right, now that establishes your rights before the axe falls but if the axe falls you're out at the end of the year right?

NICK: Yes

DUGGLEBY: What sort of package have you been - what sort of financial package have you been given?

NICK: The package they've given - there's three parts to it: one is the company severance pay which is one and a half weeks pay for each complete year's service.

DUGGLEBY: Right, let me stop me you there cos I want to just get this checked with my guests - one and a half weeks pay - is that standard ladies?

AARONS: It's supposed to depend on your age so that you

DUGGLEBY: 47

AARONS: If you've been - and you've been there for 12 years, so 5 years of that should be at one and a half times your salary, 5 years of your 12 years and then the remaining 7 will be at one. So it's 7 plus 5 times one and a half.

DUGGLEBY: That's the statutory bit Nick, but it looks as if though you've done a bit better than that?

NICK; I mean I think the overall package is very good - in fact that's part of it plus there's 2 weeks pay plus there's a month's salary.

DUGGLEBY: Okay that sounds fair enough then

NICK: And then on top of that there's also notice which in my case will be 3 months and then on top of that there's also a notional bonus which will be a 15% of the salary so overall I think it's probably quite a good package.

DUGGLEBY: Right, well I'll just check with Elaine, if you were sort of negotiating this sort of package, I mean that sounds reasonable does it?

AARONS: Yes I think what you need to do Nick is to weigh that package against what the strength of your disability discrimination claim might be, because discrimination compensation is unlimited and if you're going to have a long period of unemployment which I don't what the circumstances are, but it's a possibility in the current economic climate - it maybe that your loss exceeds what they've offered you. If it wasn't for the disability aspect - what they've offered you is very generous. And there'd be no quibbling with it?

NICK: Yes

DUGGLEBY: And just bring in Rachel here because what struck me about - Nick said 3 months notice. Now that means - does he sign on - if he goes does he sign on straight away - what happens?

HADWEN: If you were to sign on straightaway I'm afraid you wouldn't be entitled to anything - your package was going to take you over the limits for the means tested benefits and it also means that you'll be treated as being in employment because a lot of these payments are actually treated as earnings, so you wouldn't be able to get Job Seeker's Allowance for some time.

DUGGLEBY: But come the time you do have to go and sign on?

HADWEN: But come - yes

DUGGLEBY: That's in 3 months time, then you will then have to go through the process of seeking suitable employment and the conditions are a lot tougher now aren't they?

HADWEN: They are quite tough but I would say that if there's any doubt about someone's capability to work and they feel that they might not be able to do just any job which is out there, that they should consider looking at applying for incapacity benefit.

NICK: Well that's really my question because my overall impression is that the package I've got is fairly good. I think the company - they've done all the things you said they should do and I think they've actually been as good as they reasonably can and I - I - I don't feel I've been discriminated against, but my real concern is where do I go from here because I wouldn't be capable of taking on the stress of a job as a surveyor in today's market, and so I would have to take a job which is considerably less than that because of my inability to take stress and I wondered if there's anything available to me to make up the difference as it were?

DUGGLEBY: Quick answer to that one?

HADWEN: A quick answer is that first of all under the DSA rules they are supposed to be more sympathetic to people who have got disabilities and should be able to take that into account, so if for example you could more restrictions on the jobs that you were prepared to look for. The second thing is possibly incapacity benefit but the rules for that are very strict on what you can and cannot do.

DUGGLEBY: Okay thanks for that Nick and we'll move to Kathy now in Surrey.

KATHY: Oh hello there

DUGGLEBY: Hello

KATHY: My question is, am I entitled to sick pay as a part time worker? I work part time - 23 hours a week for an estate agent and I just wonder what the position - my position would be if I were to be- if I had any days off sick?

DUGGLEBY: Back to you Rachel?

HADWEN: Yes, can I ask you a couple of questions Kathy? First of all how much do you earn per week?

KATHY: It's �6 - It's �6 an hour.

HADWEN: Right

KATHY: And I work for 23 hours a week

DUGGLEBY: �130 a week - something like that.

HADWEN: And are you under 65?

KATHY: Yes

HADWEN: You are - well then yes you should be entitled to statutory sick pay - it's as simple as that as long as you're earning at least the lower earnings limit which is �72 a week - you should be entitled.

KATHY: Right I see, so it's just a question of speaking to my boss then and having that paid?

DUGGLEBY: And is that paid via the firm's payroll?

KATHY: It is yes

DUGGLEBY: Listen - there's the answer okay thanks Kathy.

KATHY: Okay thank you very much

DUGGLEBY: Susan in Longberry your call now

SUSAN: Hello?

DUGGLEBY: Hello Susan

SUSAN: Hello.

DUGGLEBY: Fire away your call

SUSAN: Oh I was recently made redundant a week ago and it came as a huge shock as you can imagine. I've been with the company for just 4 years. They'd actually come to me - it wasn't a job I'd applied for - they'd come and fetched me if you like.

DUGGLEBY: Yes head hunted is the word

SUSAN: Head hunted yes. And I was a bit panicky and I worked out what my redundancy payment would be - this statutory week and a half - I'm over 50, I'm 51. The statutory week and a half - and I thought, well I'll just have enough to get by on until you know I can get my gear in motion till after Christmas. And then I found out that they'd capped it - I didn't realise that that was possible but they'd capped it at �240 a week

DUGGLEBY: Well, �240 a week. Yes well we'll get Elaine just to say whether that's right or wrong for starters?

AARONS: Susan there is a cap on the way that you calculate statutory redundancy pay so it's either one or one and a half week's pay for every year or service depending on your age, but it is subject to a maximum of �240 a week.

SUSAN: It's not very much is it?

DUGGLEBY: Now we're not strictly speaking counsellors in here but I will just get Dorothy to perhaps comment on this sort of shock element in this - when people do suddenly get: "right you're out"

HENDERSON: Yes, and that's where it may well be because you've been with the company for 4 years that you may have another way of perhaps looking at getting a bit more money because it came back to what we were saying to Nick earlier that you should go through this warning process and have some consultation etc.

DUGGLEBY: Were you the only one that was?

SUSAN: No, there were 3 of us and there was a warning process

DUGGLEBY: Three staff out of how many?

SUSAN: Probably about 40

HENDERSON: Right, it's just that if you - you said it came out as a bolt out of the blue - if you weren't properly - it wasn't properly discussed with you and you weren't given proper notice under your contract you may well have some other claims that could come up but you know Elaine's right about the �240 unfortunately.

SUSAN: Yeah there was a warning process where we were presented with the you know the reasons why we were chosen rather than anybody else.

AARONS: Were you satisfied with those reasons Susan?

SUSAN: No it was very contrived.

AARONS: Yes, because even though the right warnings and discussions and consultation take place - it doesn't get away from the fundamental point as to whether you've been fairly selected and so the possibility of an unfair dismissal claim can still be there even when on the face of it the right consultation is taking place, so you might want to look at that a bit further.

SUSAN: Even though I've accepted it - it just seemed hardly worth the effort of arguing because their minds had been so firmly made up

HENDERSON: Have you signed - have you signed any release papers? - and have you had to go - ah you haven't had to take legal advice in order to sign those papers?

SUSAN: No

AARONS: Well you may find that you still have some options there because the only way you can validly get out of rights in the tribunal is to sign this very specific form and if you haven't done it you might still have some issues.

DUGGLEBY: Is it possible to get legal advice - say for a set half hour just to see if there was a case? Does the Law Society permit that?

HENDERSON: There are various firms that will do a sort of

DUGGLEBY: Sort of little

HENDERSON: �50 - you can have a half hour interview but there's no specific legal aid to go to the tribunal.

AARONS: But what's very important Susan, is you only have 3 months to bring a claim in a tribunal so you can't sit on this and decide what to do for a long time.

DUGGLEBY: Don't let it fester and then think of - and a final quick one on this one?

HADWEN: It's also worth going to your local Citizen's Advice Bureau because many bureaus have a legal franchise in employment law and there are people who can go and represent you at employment tribunal.

DUGGLEBY: Okay lovely, thank you very much indeed for that and thanks to Susan - we'll move on now to Sally and she's in London.

SALLY: Hello. Actually listening to the people that have gone before me I think they probably all need to know the answer to this question too - what is the current law on age discrimination in the UK and Europe? At the moment I'm still getting application forms which require my age right up in front, and I've worked extensively in the States where age discrimination is illegal and nobody can ask your age so it comes as a great shock to me that I'm suddenly disqualified simply because of my age.

DUGGLEBY: Well there's no discrimination, age discrimination on this programme but I'm still going to ask you how old you are just for the benefit of other listeners?

SALLY: I'm just 60

DUGGLEBY: You're just 60

SALLY: And so I have moved into being a pensioner now which in a way actually makes me feel better about it because the last three or four years - I came back because my mother was ill - I came back to work here and suddenly discovered that I was unemployable.

DUGGLEBY: that's actually quite interesting because this question of whether you're over pensionable age - is that actually critical Elaine? - does 60 sort of stop - does discrimination sort of stop at 60 because you can draw pension therefore you're not entitled to work is that, is that?

AARONS: Well there's no age discrimination as such in this country. We have a code of practice but it doesn't have the force of law and so the experience that you've had Sally is quite typical. There is an organisation called the Employee's Forum on Age which is promoting the employment of older people and I think it's very well worth contacting them and finding out whether they have any wise advice as to the organisations who are more receptive to the employment of older people.

DUGGLEBY: But what was then the - the case that was - or the debate in Parliament last week which implied that there's European legislation that's supposed to take over Dorothy - when's that kicking in?

HENDERSON: That's unlikely to kick in until 2006 I'm afraid - there are European initiatives to make age discrimination valid in this country but it won't happen for a while, so sorry Sally, no immediate

SALLY: in about - in about - what is it 20 years half the population is going to be over 50 or something like that - they need us - they're going to need us to work.

DUGGLEBY: That's true, that's true but

SALLY: So I think it's time that somebody actually took it on a little more forceably.

DUGGLEBY: Fair comment

AARONS: Absolutely, and although this isn't applicable to you Sally just thinking of our earlier callers, the same is true when it comes to redundancy selection - there's nothing to stop employers at the moment selecting the older members of staff provided they've got objective criteria on which to make those selections.

DUGGLEBY: And just one final point which wasn't particularly raised but it was pertinent to my comment about 60 - if you're 60 Dorothy and you have reached the retirement age that your firm decrees and the firm - and you want to go on working, and you're perfectly able to go on working but they just simply say no you're 60 - out - there's no, presumably no appeal against that?

HENDERSON: There isn't if they apply it across the board for both sexes - the problem - you might have a claim if for example they say to women oh you go at 60 and men can stay on till 65, but if they - they apply it consistently for both sexes at a certain age, and it's something you've signed up to in the contract, and often it's linked into when they'll offer you a pension, then there isn't really any angle on that.

DUGGLEBY: Right. Now then we've got Sue in Oldham - I beg your pardon Oakham which I think is in Rutland.

SUE: Hello. This is to do with my partner - he was actually head hunted for a role in the last few months and he felt he was ready for a career change - the only interest for him was the fact that it was a European role and he took a �20,000 cut in salary in order to do it. When he started the role he was told well we need you to work in the UK for sort of a temporary period of 6-12 months and he said that's fine. The company has now reorganised and he's been told there is no European aspect to his job at all now and he's told them that the only reason he changed jobs and took a cut in salary because of the European content and they've just said well what do you want us to do about it?

DUGGLEBY: Alright, well that's a tricky one maybe - but what do you think Elaine?

AARONS: Well Sue if you were listening earlier I touched on a very similar point before with an earlier caller about people who change jobs and give up work in a perfectly secure employment to go and work somewhere else, and if the promises that are made during the recruitment process don't actually come to fruition there maybe issues as to whether misrepresentations were made at the recruitment stage or whether there were either terms expressly stated in his contract or implied into his contract which the company hasn't lived up to. The one element of what you said that concerns me is that there was a period of a number of months when he worked in the UK and one would want to look very closely at whether he'd effectively accepted some kind of variation of what was agreed when he was originally recruited, so it needs looking at very closely to see if he has any legal rights, but I think it's definitely worth exploring.

SUE: Right, cos he did agree on a temporary basis to do the UK aspect but he was told it would be you know a maximum of 12 months, but now obviously that's completely gone out of the window because of the reorganisation and they've said that there's no European role for him at all now.

AARONS: Well the other line of enquiry is what's happened since he was recruited because it may be that when he was recruited they did have a job for him in Europe - it's just they needed him to work in the UK for now. So there may or may not be something to pursue here but it's certainly worth looking at more closely.

DUGGLEBY: Okay thanks for that and we'll move now on to Dundee where Ann is waiting:

ANN: Hello

DUGGLEBY: Hello

ANN: This is about how ill health retirement and disability - the Disability Discrimination Act fits together. I was early retired in September this year - went off ill full time from May this year but in October last year I was diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a moderately severe depressive illness - my employer had referred me to the consultant psychiatrist. When we were discussing early retirement I had in mind that an employer is supposed to keep a register of people who have an identified illness and I asked should I have been registered in October 2000 and what rights did I have under the Disability Discrimination Act?

DUGGLEBY: Can I ask you whether the early retirement was sort of given to you as well you know we're going to retire you anyway or were you sort of genuinely given a choice because this has taken place over a year hasn't it? First of all you've got your illness, then you went on to part time, then you retired, so there's an 11 month period - were you under any duress at that time?

ANN: I was told there was no choice - the practice was always to retire.

DUGGLEBY: Okay, well stop there because I want to bring Dorothy in

HENDERSON: As regards your question on the register Ann, there isn't a register anymore - there used to be - before the Disability Discrimination Act came into force, there were various quotas and targets that people had to meet and they had to keep a register of employees on their records who were disabled. That actually was done away with when the act came in so there isn't a formal register, so that's not the issue. But if you were effectively forced to retire when you chose not to and if that reason was a reason rising out of a disability

DUGGLEBY: Which implies the firm says we don't want anybody who's not able to participate full time - the implication.

HENDERSON: Yes, there may well be an issue. But there are lots of stages that you have to go through: One, to establish that the illness you have is a disability and I think Elaine mentioned earlier that a mental impairment can be a disability but it's not a foregone conclusion, and then you have to consider whether they went through various stages to - to see if they could accommodate your illness which it sounds like they had a go, but I don't know how - query how genuine that was, but there's also I'm afraid some defense to disability discrimination which is that if an employer, even if they had discriminated they can justify that in terms of the overall needs of the business and for the job, there is a possibility that even though they've discriminated against you they could persuade a tribunal if it came to that that they needed to and that could get them off the hook, so it's not always just a foregone conclusion.

DUGGLEBY: Is it a small or a large firm Ann?

ANN: It's a large firm

HENDERSON: Well that would make it harder I would have thought cos they should be able to accommodate better.

DUGGLEBY: Elaine?

AARONS: Yes - Ann, just to emphasis a point that again there's only a 3 month time limit for making a claim for disability discrimination.

DUGGLEBY: Yes, she went in September so

AARONS: And you went in September so time is quite short to get on with that. The other thing to say is that if you were still in receipt of sick pay at the time that your early retirement took affect, that is likely to strengthen your case because the tribunals don't like people being, or having their employment terminated when there's still an entitlement to sick pay.

DUGGLEBY: Okay we must move on cos we're running out of time I'm afraid - Tony in Oxford you're next?

TONY: Good afternoon

DUGGLEBY: Your call

TONY: Thank you. I'd like to ask the ladies this afternoon about unfair dismissal. I believe and a lot of my advisors believe that I have been unfairly dismissed and then I come up against a snag with my rights in as much that the law states that before I can take them to a tri - or take it before a tribunal there is this one year clause. Is there anything I can do about this?

DUGGLEBY: Elaine?

AARONS: Tony, what's your notice entitlement under the contract?

TONY: It doesn't say AARONS: It doesn't say and what sort of level is your job?

TONY: As the company quality engineer

AARONS: Well that's very interesting indeed. You don't have any rights to claim unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal unless you've clocked up the one year, but if you are dismissed without notice which is what happens in many cases, and had you been given notice you would have clocked up the one year then part of your claim for damages for breach of contract is likely to include the unfair dismissal claim you would have been able to bring if you'd have clocked up the year.

DUGGLEBY: So you went after ten and a half months I think?

TONY: That's right yes

DUGGLEBY: So the implication there is if your period of notice was more than 6 weeks it would have the year is that right?

TONY: That's right yes

HENDERSON: Yes although did you get a payment from them Tony instead of the notice period - was there some sort of payment made to cover what you would have got over a notice period?

TONY: Only to the end of this month and it's only a week ago so it's not even a month

HENDERSON: And was there a clause in the contract that said they could do that - they could make you a payment instead of giving you notice?

TONY: It said in the contract that they could give me a week's pay

HENDERSON: Right because that - that may cut off the breach of contract you see - the thing is that if they promised to give you notice, if they say but instead of giving you notice we can pay x amount of money that might mean that they haven't breached the contract, so it's certainly a possibility but it's not definite.

AARONS: It needs looking at very closely because you said earlier that there was no notice period stipulated in the contract, so you need to look at that more closely Tony.

DUGGLEBY: Okay, interesting case from Tony, let's see what Heather has to ask us from East Grinstead?

HEATHER: Hello, my question's on maternity leave. I'm due to start maternity leave in kind of February/March next year. My company's announced today that it's due to merge, or start merger talks with another similarly sized large international company, and I'm wondering how vulnerable I'll be while I'm on maternity leave to something like this? I'm in a completely male dominated industry - the only, basically one of the only women in it, and I'm just wondering whether they're going to say well she's away so - I know they're not supposed to do that.

DUGGLEBY: Yeah very legitimate fear I'm sure Elaine?

AARONS: It's going to depend entirely on how this merger takes place Heather because there are two ways mergers can take place - either your employer's shares will be acquired in which case it's as though nothing's happened to your employment, or there'll be what we call a transfer of undertaking in which case your employment rights are completely and utterly ring fenced and secure, so basically if anything happens while you're on maternity leave you look pretty secure from the point of view of anything happening in that both you may have unfair dismissal rights and discrimination rights if they try and prevent you coming back.

DUGGLEBY: Rachel can you remind us about maternity pay when it's - how long it's due for?

HADWEN: Well that partly depends on how long she's been in employment and also on her contract of employment because your contractual maternity pay is quite likely to be more than your statutory maternity pay.

HEATHER: Yes, I've been there a long long while - I don't actually know - cos I haven't looked into it yet, but I know I'd get the standard 18 weeks plus I think it's 29 weeks leave. I don't actually know how the pay - I haven't seen anything more than statutory maternity pay on the contract.

AARONS: Right, well that would be worth looking at because it maybe that you've got a good contractual deal, but if not you're probably entitled to 90% of your earnings for a certain period and then the standard rate which is �62.20

DUGGLEBY: Right, and we'll move on - Rosemary in Milton Keynes, your call now:

ROSEMARY: Oh good afternoon. I had a telephone call from a friend of mine last evening and she's been working in a local company just for a very short time - for 2 or 3 months, and when she joined the company before taking the job it was agreed that she was allowed to have a holiday that she'd booked which starts in a couple of weeks for a month. Now, the holiday is due to happen they're saying to her that if she takes a holiday she has no job to come back to.

DUGGLEBY: Okay, is that legal - Elaine?

AARONS: That's really interesting Rosemary because in different ways this question's come up now 3 times in the programme - in that it seems as though you've joined the company on the basis of a promise that was made to you. Did you give up your old job?

ROSEMARY: No it's not me actually

AARONS: Oh your friend yes

ROSEMARY: She seriously is a friend of mine yes

AARONS: Did your friend have a job that they gave up?

ROSEMARY: No

AARONS: No, well in that case the only claim might be for the loss of opportunity for taking other employment that might be more secure and that's quite a tricky claim so as with many employees with less than a year's service there's not an awful lot it sounds as though you can do.

DUGGLEBY: Okay, we've got one final question which is slightly related from Ethel in Blackpool if you'll make it fairly quick please Ethel?

ETHEL: Hello

DUGGLEBY: Hello

ETHEL: Hello - it's about the minimum wage. When my employers finally - 6 months later decided to give us minimum wage - as a consequence of this they stopped us having extra pay for holiday - bank holidays - they stopped the 12 month increment rise that we have and they also stopped the bonus that we used to get at the end of the year and I was just wondering if this was legal?

DUGGLEBY: Can they do that?

HADWEN: Well employers often try and cover the increase in the minimum wage by taking away other rights, but if your contractual rights have been in a certain way for a period of time then they can't just suddenly change that.

DUGGLEBY: Okay, I'm afraid we've got to end it there because we are really running out of time, but many thanks to my panel: Rachel Hadwen from National Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux, Elaine Aarons from Eversheads, and Dorothy Henderson from Travers Smith Braithwaite. The information line is on 0800 044 044 and our website: bbc.co.uk/moneybox. Judging from your calls and emails pensions are the hottest topic at moment and that's why there's a MONEY BOX special on pensions tonight on Radio 4 at 8 o'clock. It's presented by Paul Lewis and it's called 'Pensions in Peril', so if you have an occupational pension don't miss that programme with Paul - 8 o'clock on Radio 4, and he'll be busy over the next few weeks taking your calls on Monday's MONEY BOX LIVE as well as presenting Saturday's MONEY BOX. I'll be back in the New Year.

BACK ANNO: That was Vincent Duggleby and the producer was Jessica Dunbar.