Mileage Reimbursement

an9i77

If I was in the OP's position I'd see who else was prepared to make a stand, and contact the union if there is one, to discuss raising a collective grievance. As this affects a lot of people not just the OP may be better to do it with others.

Savvy_Sue

bennyboy92 wrote: »

Surely companies are fleecing us by forcing us to log-on, cash-up etc in our own time! By working unpaid for 30 mins per day, we are working an extra 17 days per year for nothing.

Anyone agree with me on this?

Plenty of people may agree with you on this, but it is NOT unlawful (unless you are on NMW) so the question is, what are you prepared to do about it? I don't think there's much you can do about the start of the day: it does take me 15 minutes to get in, use the loo, get the coffee going, fire my computer up, exchange a bit of chit chat and finally sit down ready to work - I could do it quicker but that's a 'normal' day. So to be ready to START work at 9 am, I need to be there at 8.45 am.

I feel it's easier to put a set amount of time on the end of the day, however, because no-one's likely to be stringing that out, and there are set things which HAVE to be done each day.

If you're not yet in the union, I'd join now and see what their response is, it won't be the first time they've had this problem presented.

bennyboy92 wrote: »

If given a lift by my father though for instance (if he's feeling kind, when he's off work,) the expense incurred is for him driving two ways, e.g. there and back, so surely I should be able to claim 2 journeys as my expenses.

How you get to work is your business, even if it's at the 'other' location. When you're at the 'other' location, your employer reimburses 'reasonable' expenses. ATM that's capped at your train fare, if you were driving yourself then you could claim mileage, and the reasons for that have been explained at length already.

If your father's kind enough to make two journeys, that's his business. The employer doesn't care. And I'm quite sure your father understands that this is how the world of work works!

liam92_2

I'll just re-iterate my position.

I work at a high-street bank and have done so for around 4 years, contracted for Saturdays, yet have often worked 'extra hours' during the week in school holidays and latterly, uni breaks.

I do not want a 'career' with this company and plan to leave this autumn / winter.

For my first 3 or so years, I only ever worked at my 'base' office. However, around a year or so, I was asked by my manager to cover at another office in another town (around 45 mins extra travelling time for me by Public Transport or 15 mins by driving.) I really enjoyed working at the different office (less busy, nicer people, variety etc,) and was happy to cover there. I asked my manager if I could be paid the extra travelling time, however he said no. I just accepted this, however my thinking was that if we're paid additional transport costs, we should also be paid the additional time taken.

I was also asked to work at another office, for which the travel time was 1 hr, and did cover there a few times, however have since stated to my manager I'd rather not work there again. I still like working at the office that's around 45 mins away from my base.

My contract states that I should be required to travel to other locations as directed by my manager. However, I'm the only one in the office who doesn't drive and there are others for whom it'd be far easier to travel to the other location than myself, so at times it does seem my manager takes advantage.

Also, my contract is purely for Saturdays, for the weekdays I've covered at another office, where does the law stand?

On occasions, I am given a lift and on other occasions, get public transport. To the poster who said expenses should be capped at the least expensive means of transport, please further explain the wooly concept of 'reasonableness' in this context. How far would the distance have to be for walking to be considered 'unreasonable?'

Secondly, we are paid to work 9 am to 5 pm. However, we are told by the manager to arrive for 8.45 am and quite often do not end up leaving until 5.10 to 5.15 pm. I personally believe that if paid for 9 to 5, I should arrive to start at 9 and be walking out of the door at 5.

The contract states that we should be prepared to work additional hours in order to be able to carry out or duties (however it doesn't state that these additional hours be unpaid.)

I'm interested to know what kind of situations others who work in banks / retail are in - do you get paid for 9 am to 5 pm or is your cashing-up/logging-off time paid?

I don't think that I have much chance of persuading others to start a revolt and am fairly anti-TU, although am not too fussed about individually 'rocking the boat!'

Thanks again

Savvy_Sue

The law is on the side of your employers. Travel time does not have to be paid, even if you're travelling further, but in some situations some employers will pay for it. Travel expenses do not have to be paid, even if you're travelling further, but in some situations some employers will pay for it. In retail (and banking) it's not at all uncommon for staff to be expected to be there before the shift starts and to stay after it ends: in banking in particular I believe that 'overtime' would not be paid until after half an hour, and managers were very good at getting problems resolved (or leaving them for the next day) at 29 minutes.

The only exception to any of that is, as I've stated, if that overtime means your wage drops below NMW. But travel time is completely irrelevant to that calculation.

If you think your employer is taking advantage of your good nature, stop going to the other branch. If you don't want to work more than Saturdays, say so. If you don't need a reference from this job, make lots of waves.

And in your next job, check the details and expectations and haggle if you don't like them!

Jariya

To add to that your contract states your payment so where it says extra time may be be required it doesn't need to then say that this will be unpaid as it's clear as it is simply because your salary is stated on there.

This is the kind of wording you will get always in the vast majority of office roles.
I've worked in Finance in office based roles for over 25 years and each and every role has required me to do extra and I signed the contract so agreed to that. It goes with the territory in that type of role and is perfectly legal.

If the travel is bothering you it would have been better if you had declined your boss's request to work at the other location.
I would advise you have a chat with your boss and request that you no longer work at that location and that he finds someone else for cover.

an9i77

You asked what it was like in other office jobs. I work in the head office of a retail company and employees clock in and out at the beginning and end of the day. Generally so long as you're clocked in by nine and clocked out after five you're ok. But some managers prefer people to be at their desk, coffee made and logged on for nine (generally this is in the more customer facing departments such as the call centre), it depends on business need really. If a certain department starts taking the p and everyone turning up at ten past nine, having taken ten mins to go to the cloakroom, toilet get a coffee etc, and customers are phoning and no one is there to take their calls I can quite see how they would expect people to be ready to take calls for nine. In other departments they may stagger things a bit so some people work 8.45 to 4.45 and others 9-5 for example (that's how it works in my office, although often I won't leave til half five if there's stuff to be done that can't wait)

liam92_2

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

The law is on the side of your employers. Travel time does not have to be paid, even if you're travelling further, but in some situations some employers will pay for it. Travel expenses do not have to be paid, even if you're travelling further, but in some situations some employers will pay for it. In retail (and banking) it's not at all uncommon for staff to be expected to be there before the shift starts and to stay after it ends: in banking in particular I believe that 'overtime' would not be paid until after half an hour, and managers were very good at getting problems resolved (or leaving them for the next day) at 29 minutes.

The only exception to any of that is, as I've stated, if that overtime means your wage drops below NMW. But travel time is completely irrelevant to that calculation.

If you think your employer is taking advantage of your good nature, stop going to the other branch. If you don't want to work more than Saturdays, say so. If you don't need a reference from this job, make lots of waves.

And in your next job, check the details and expectations and haggle if you don't like them!

Out of interest, how do you haggle over a contract?

Thanks

getmore4less

You hagle by removing or adding terms eg if you are accepting the job because it is local and the hours because they fit round child care aggreeing to flexable working at any location means the job is not suitable so you ask for them to be removed.

anyway back to the main issue

I work as a p/t bank clerk (Saturdays only) at a branch in a small town and have done so for around 4 years.

For the first 3 years, I only ever worked at my base branch, however ever since around 18 months ago, my manager has asked me to cover at another office (around 16 miles from my base branch,) which I've done.

You need to highlight that you agreed to this on a temporary basis and is not sustainable due to costs and time, depending on the reactions you either try to negotiate or play a harder line and say you don't want to go or take it and look for another job.

an9i77

liam92 wrote: »

Out of interest, how do you haggle over a contract?

Thanks

Well this usually happens at the offer stage IF you hold enough sway to be able to negotiate ie if you are going for a more senior role where there's a limit to the number of people who can do your job, and they really want you etc. If you are at the bottom of the ladder it's a lot harder because they can just find someone else to accept the contractual terms if you don't like it.
If something happens after you start employment, or it wasn't obvious when you accepted the contract, then you can raise a grievance but obviously a lot of people don't like to do that in case they are seen as troublemakers. I know you said you are anti TU but this is where TUs can be really helpful particularly if a lot of people are affected by something and a collective grievance is raised (you don't have to be in a TU to raise a collective grievance, or any grievance, but it probably helps)
Ultimately if someone didn't get anywhere with a grievance one could go down the Employment Tribunal route, depending on what the grievance was about, this may necessitate resigning and claiming constructive dismissal, although you don't have to have done this to raise an ET claim against an employer.

liam92_2

an9i77 wrote: »

I thought it's only when you go to the other branch? If it is every day then yes it is breach of contract, question is how far are you willing to stick your head above the parapet to try and resolve it?

We are asked by the manager to arrive by 8.45am so we are ready to open the doors at 9.00am - this applies to all branches.

However as my contract is 09.00-17.00, am I within my rights to arrive at 8.55am ready to start logging on at 9am and leave the building at 5pm?! (I'm not aiming to stick at this job for much longer and I've checked and only standard references are issued.)