No pay rise as I'm temporary worker - is this right?

Uniscots97

I covering someone on maternity leave. I was offered exactly the same pay as them and have been given a contract up until the date they think she's coming back. Big announcement yesterday (and I was invited to it) that everyone was getting a 4% pay rise. Only I'm told today I'm not getting it as I'm a temp worker. Now I was told I'd get same pay as lady I'm covering for, so why wouldn't I also get the pay rise?

Uniscots97

does anyone know please?

skintandsad

I don't claim to have any knowledge, but have found this article on the governments website, which might be of some use:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_10027735

Someone who knows more on employment law will hopefully pop along and give you some guidance

HTH

s&s x

sexki11en

As a temp, you are not entitled to the same benefits as a permanent employee.

To be fair, most companies wouldn't pay a temp the same wage as the permanent person so I think you've been quite lucky there in the first place. They would be quite entitled to pay you minimum wage, not that that would be right.

SK x

SarEl

There isn't enough information to give legal opinion, but what is described is not uncommon and does not normally constitute "unfavourable treatment". Many employers have rules around how long you must have worked for them to get a pay rise, or pay rises may be dependant upon previous performance (yours and/or the company) and only go to people who have been there at the relevant "period" when it was assessed. It all depends on what the circumstances are. But at the same time, even if it did constitute unfavourable treatment (and I by no means suggest it is or it isn't - what would you intend to do about it? Because law is, unfortunately, only useful if you intend to use it. In other words, are you going to take your temporary employer to a tribunal or threaten to do so (if you have a case) - bearing in mind you are temporary and have less than 12 months employment.

I would suggest that a better approach may be to raise the matter informally and ask why you are not getting the rise (and there may, as I said, be a perfectly good reason for it), but unless you intend to push the issue to the -n-th degree and risk your job over 4% - even assuming you have a case - you may have to accept that this is just life and move on from the matter.

SarEl

sexki11en wrote: »

As a temp, you are not entitled to the same benefits as a permanent employee.

To be fair, most companies wouldn't pay a temp the same wage as the permanent person so I think you've been quite lucky there in the first place. They would be quite entitled to pay you minimum wage, not that that would be right.

SK x

Sorry but this isn't true. In fact a "temp" (whatever that means - it isn't a legal term and has no meaning in law) has the right to many of the same benefits. They are employees like anyone else. If you pay someone at minimum wage when the rate for the job is massively higher and being paid to other staff, then the employer may face a claim or direct or indirect discrimination (depending on the circumstances). A pay differential may be lawful, and I described some (but not all) of the circumstances where this may happen and be perfectly ok. But the law is very specific on the point of unequal treatment between employees taken on on time limited contracts - it is unlawful to unreasonably treat them differently from any other employee.

Deep_In_Debt

Not sure on the legalities of it all but when I was covering maternity leave (now perm in the role) my contract stated that I was entitled to the standard holiday pro-rated, not entitled to pay rises, pension or any of the other benefits and I was being paid the same as the person on maternity but I did get a bonus at the end of the contract before I went permanent.

You should be entitled to many of the company benefits but not sure about payrises - I've never come across it in the times I've covered maternity leave contracts in the past.

SarEl

Deep_In_Debt wrote: »

Not sure on the legalities of it all but when I was covering maternity leave (now perm in the role) my contract stated that I was entitled to the standard holiday pro-rated, not entitled to pay rises, pension or any of the other benefits and I was being paid the same as the person on maternity but I did get a bonus at the end of the contract before I went permanent.

You should be entitled to many of the company benefits but not sure about payrises - I've never come across it in the times I've covered maternity leave contracts in the past.

The test in law (with the exception of the pension, which is slightly different) is whether any other employee with the same length of service would be treated in the same way. Whether you are "temporary", or "permanant" (assuming that you are not employed through an agency with the agency acting as the employer), there should be no difference in the terms that you are employed under. It is relatively normal for an employer to tie pay rises and benefits to length of service, and provided this does not breach age discrimination laws, this is perfectly ok. It is not ok to tie employment bnefits to the status of your contract. But my guess is that most people in this situation would allow it to slide because it isn't worth loosing a job, a reference, and possibly a permanant job at the end of it, even if they realise that something wrong is being done. And certainly few would risk it over a few £'s. It doesn't make it right or fair, but the world seldom is, and that's just life! So if, for example, there is a 10% staff discount after you have completed 3 months of employment, this discount should go to all employees of the company who have completed 3 months employment, not just those on permanant contracts.

Pensions are treated somewhat different and if the employment is likely to last for less than two years, an employer may exclude those employees from a company pension scheme.

I should also add that being paid a different wage / having different holidays than someone you replace in such arrangements as maternity leave cover is not unlawful if the reason for the differential is related to your length of service. That is, if, as a new starter, you would be paid at thebottom of a grade, or get less holidays than the person you replace, this would be lawful - their benefits etc are tied to their length of service as would yours be to your own length of service.

Uniscots97

This might make things clearer, I was invited to a presentation with everyone else (inc perm staff) including 10 other temps. Our names were shouted out as new starts included in with 2 permanent employees that started after me doing other roles. It was only the day after they said we were entitled. Seems odd telling us all that, treating us the same as the employees then telling us we weren't getting it. I suppose I'm a bit upset with them changing their minds.

Deep_In_Debt

unixgirluk wrote: »

This might make things clearer, I was invited to a presentation with everyone else (inc perm staff) including 10 other temps. Our names were shouted out as new starts included in with 2 permanent employees that started after me doing other roles. It was only the day after they said we were entitled. Seems odd telling us all that, treating us the same as the employees then telling us we weren't getting it. I suppose I'm a bit upset with them changing their minds.

I hear where you are coming from...I went through the same things. It hurts...but I guess I took it on the chin.

Uniscots97

I just didn't like them telling us we're getting it then changing their minds.