working Bank holiday for no extra pay

normanjay

getmore4less wrote: »

To stand a decent chance of this you probably need to put in a grievence now.

I agree with bigheadxx and terra_ferma on this - too much risk involved..

This will say(something like, get advice) you are working under protest at the new terms. You disagree with these based on the fact that you have been paid at rate X for the last X years and this is now part of your contract of employment.

To just work is accepting the terms.(which you may chose to do given some of your otehr comments)

To become custom and practice or 'implied' it would take at least one year before I could be considered to have accepted the terms. Well assuming that rule works both ways.

If the day would normaly be part of the statutory holiday entitlement this is NOT a DOIL.

I see that now

Prior to this holiday becoming part of the statutory holidays if they previously just paid overtime with no DOIL(for a contractual BH day) and wanted to make this change they should have notified employees.

They notified us of the change of mind about the shutdown and why they had changed their mind. The first 2 months production targets were below projection and they needed to make up the shortfall. The change in pay however was slipped in without a word. Only when we enquired did we find out what they had done.

getmore4less

normanjay wrote: »

To become custom and practice or 'implied' it would take at least one year before I could be considered to have accepted the terms. Well assuming that rule works both ways.

That asumes there is a rule, I don't think there is, it would be dependant on the frequency of the practice before it became implied.

I thing not challenging a single change from the previous norm is enough to break any custom and practice certainly after 3 month(ET limit).

You either make a stand or accept the change.

normanjay

mountainofdebt wrote: »

As a matter of interest, concerning working a Bank Holiday, would anyone vote for the days when everything was shut on a Bank Holiday and a Sunday.

I wouldn't. Bank holidays are typically days when shops make special offers/deals to get you in. It is a good time to buy.

tbh I can't see the fuss about working a bank holiday (and yes I worked Friday and will work Monday as well ......not working tomorrow but that's only because I worked today instead of tomorrow).

I would much rather have a days holiday when I chose to have it not when the calender told me

A day out on a bank holiday is a bit like a night out to the pub/club on the busiest night of the week. Some people prefer to mingle in large groups, others like a quiet pint in the corner reading a newspaper. Either preference is equally valid.

As far as working bank holidays is concerned, some rely on them as a means to earning some extra money quickly. Some people do not get tempted by normal overtime rates and only work bank holidays which have traditionally been paid at premium rates. It was often the only way an employer could get the staff to come in. I recall getting quad time for working over the xmas shutdown (happy days)

normanjay

getmore4less wrote: »

That asumes there is a rule, I don't think there is, it would be dependant on the frequency of the practice before it became implied.

Is there a qualifying formula that solidly states yes, this is a custom and practice or is it very much open to interpretation? Anyone know for sure?

I thing not challenging a single change from the previous norm is enough to break any custom and practice certainly after 3 month(ET limit).

Blimey, I don't have as much time as I thought.

You either make a stand or accept the change.

How valid would it be to submit a letter (signed by various employees) voicing our objections, kinda like a group grievance? I don't mind sticking my neck out as long as I have some support.

joeypesci

angel.cake wrote: »

This is about the only response on here that actually answers your question! I don't understand why the majority of people on this forum decide to thrust their opinions at the OPs rather than offering a useful response.

Obviously lots of these replies feel you should be eternally grateful for even having a job. However, the fact is that your employer has changed your 'implied' T&Cs without your (or your colleagues) agreement. Regardless of whether it is in your original contract, the extra pay on BHs has become your contract by means of practice. This is quite a significant breach as they are actually removing a benefit and if I was in your position, I would not be happy working BHs at all. Im sure if all the repliers on here suddenly lost 8 days holiday a year, they would not be saying "oh well, !!!!!! happens, I'll get on with it".

I think you should ask your employer why this has now changed. Obviously you want to keep things amicable but it really depends how far you want to take it. You do have a case for breach of contract though.

Love this post. I also hate when people reply on a forum along the lines of "Be thankful you have a job" "I work BH and don't get extra, deal with it". And all that crap. I don't care for those opinions, just answer the fing question is what I say. And you've done that nicely.

Although it might be ironic that I haven't answered the question either. Although I haven't been patronising either like the other posts.

getmore4less

joeypesci wrote: »

I also hate when people reply on a forum along the lines of "Be thankful you have a job" "I work BH and don't get extra, deal with it". And all that crap.

I would not be suprised many of these are thankfull they have a job, any job

normanjay

getmore4less wrote: »

I would not be suprised many of these are thankfull they have a job, any job

The implied meaning in the context of this thread is that you should thus let your employer do as they please is it not?

I've heard employers say that we should be glad we have a job and I can understand that point of view from their position but as an employee it is surrendering to their will. We are not slaves. The employer and employee have a legally binding contract - whosoever breeches it should be challenged.

If it is the employee who causes the breech does the employer shrug their shoulders and say I should be thankful I have that employee? I don't think so

I'm sure my employer is thankful he has his job, particularly his job.

MrsE_2

mountainofdebt wrote: »

I would much rather have a days holiday when I chose to have it not when the calender told me

I love bank hols:)

24 days off, + 8 bank hols, + bought 5 days hol = 37 days off:D

Plus an extra 22 days picked up through flexible working (9 day fortnight):D

Now if only I could find the time to take it:(

MrsManda

normanjay wrote: »

Is there a qualifying formula that solidly states yes, this is a custom and practice or is it very much open to interpretation? Anyone know for sure?

Whether a particular practice has become a part of the contract can be very difficult to decide. There is no fixed time limit after which something is definitely part of the contract.
Among other things, it depends on:

• how seriously it has been treated (has the employer acted like they have a choice?)
• how clear it is (has the employer treated the matter differently each time?)
• how long it has been in place

https://www.direct.gov.uk

getmore4less

normanjay wrote: »

How valid would it be to submit a letter (signed by various employees) voicing our objections, kinda like a group grievance? I don't mind sticking my neck out as long as I have some support.

If this can be done without an obvious leader in case they do go down the get rid of troublemaker route(how likley is that).

The key is to try and establish a better working relationship so that they realise that consultation with the workforce would be constructive when planing future changes. In most cases a workforce will be reasonable if there is a clear business need and the emplyer shows some comprimise to ballance any reduction in benifit.

Letting them know that people are not happy is important, some employers are oblivious so need to be told.

(BTW I think you missed the irony in my other post)