No notice of impending changes.

VinXev

I am in a department where there are 2 contracted staff members.
1 is on a 39 hour per week contract and the other member (me) is on a 20 hour per week 'minimum' contract. I have been on this contract for 11 years and during those 11 years I have consistently worked full time hours (often 40 to 50 hours per week, sometimes more!!) but rarely in this time have I ever worked a straight 20 hours.

I was informed on Monday that my employers wish to bring in a 3rd person on another 20 hour contract rather than make ME full time and despite me raising concerns on how it affects me financially they said they would consider my opinion and concerns yet the vacancy has already been advertised nationally less than 48 hours after I found out.

Even though my contracts states a minimum 20 hours, do I have any rights to complain?

I have a wife, 2 children and a mortgage to consider so I'm sure you can understand my concerns.

Jarndyce

VinXev wrote: »

I am in a department where there are 2 contracted staff members.
1 is on a 39 hour per week contract and the other member (me) is on a 20 hour per week 'minimum' contract. I have been on this contract for 11 years and during those 11 years I have consistently worked full time hours (often 40 to 50 hours per week, sometimes more!!) but rarely in this time have I ever worked a straight 20 hours.

I was informed on Monday that my employers wish to bring in a 3rd person on another 20 hour contract rather than make ME full time and despite me raising concerns on how it affects me financially they said they would consider my opinion and concerns yet the vacancy has already been advertised nationally less than 48 hours after I found out.

Even though my contracts states a minimum 20 hours, do I have any rights to complain?

I have a wife, 2 children and a mortgage to consider so I'm sure you can understand my concerns.

You would need to argue that by custom and practice your hours had, de facto, become full time - that will purely depend on the facts, ie just how rarely you only worked 20 hours, and how long this had been going on for. You say you have been consistently working full time hours for 11 years - can you elaborate - how many weeks out of that 11 years would you NOT have worked FT say?

System

Maybe they have assessed the requirements and decided that they need 2 people at all (or most of) the time. Therefore to cover leave/sickness etc then the manning level needs to be 3 people.

VinXev

Jarndyce wrote: »

You would need to argue that by custom and practice your hours had, de facto, become full time - that will purely depend on the facts, ie just how rarely you only worked 20 hours, and how long this had been going on for. You say you have been consistently working full time hours for 11 years - can you elaborate - how many weeks out of that 11 years would you NOT have worked FT say?

I could not be precise but I can recall ONE time where I worked 20 hours and no more. Other than that, I have no memory of ever doing it again.

Jarndyce

VinXev wrote: »

I could not be precise but I can recall ONE time where I worked 20 hours and no more. Other than that, I have no memory of ever doing it again.

In which case you may well be able to argue that your de facto hours are highter. But !!!!!! is right - if the employer can show that they have sound operational reasons for making the change they would get away with it I'm afraid.