Not given contracted hours, manager sending me home..

barr182

What rights do I have as an employee regarding time of work, contracted hours etc?

Today and yesterday I have been sent home early from work by my manager. I lost 3 hours for those two days. I would say im sent home early maybe a couple of times a week. These hours all add up and times are hard.

Im contracted for 35 to 40 hours a week. I have my contract in front of me if anyone needs any quotes? I would say over the last 3 months at the least, ive been lucky to get 30 hours or more. Im sometimes given 35+ hours by the rota, But when you add up the lost hours from being sent home when its quiet, i wont be payed what im expecting from what the rota says.

I understand its a quiet time for business, and they need to watch labor..But im allocated these hours at the start of every week so why cut them.

I brought this up with my manager today. He told me if i didnt go home like he asked, i would be given a disciplinary for not doing as my manager instructs. I acknowledged my contract states my working hours my vary from time to time. He told me the period for which they are allowed to give me less than contracted hours was 17 weeks. 17 weeks i have to put up with not getting my full hours before i can do something...

Suddenly because they're cutting hours, they are making staff take a compulsory 30 minute break for 6 hours or more worked. ( i would regularly work 8+ with no break). Its fine if they want to do this, as the law requires something similar.. I had my half hour break during my shift...Two other staff who were on at the same time as me did not have they're 30 minute breaks. So i was told to have my break, and also got sent home early, Whilst these two did not have a break. Surely they cant just pick and chose when to enforce these compulsory breaks. By getting sent home early I did not work the 6 hours needed to entitle me to a break, so i would not have had one if i knew i would be sent home.

Im sorry I understand this post is very long..But any advice would be much appreciated...

My contract says my hours may change from time to time, but its been going on for a very long time now. And what rights to i have regarding being sent home early? Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

KiKi

What's the precise wording on your contract regarding hours? (Please include anything on the 17 weeks.)

If you are contracted to 35 as a min, then you must be paid for 35, regardless of whether or not you worked them.

In addition: how long have you worked there?

KiKi

barr182

Hello there thanks for the reply, I started in October 2009.

In my contract there is a page headed "Statement of terms and conditions of employment"

(The text is abit faded but i'll try my hardest to repeat it word for word)

Hours of work- The company reserves the right to increase or decrease your normal hours of work from time to time. Such changes may be of either a temporary or a permanent nature. The Company also reserves the right to lay you off if this should become necessary, It you are laid off you may be asked to attend training, work in nearby sites and/or take any *** or outstanding holiday during the lay off period. The Company may entirely at its discretion pay you a lay off payment at the rate of 50% of basic pay for a duration which is *** discretionary.

There is also another section below as follows.

Times of work.- Your actual hours of work will be notified to you by your line manager from time to time and may vary from day to day and week to week. They may include days, nights, split shifts weekends and public holidays.

barr182

I cant find anything in there about 17 weeks....Theres not alot of details in the whole thing and it all sounds very one sided in my opinion, We can change your hours as we please etc

Russe11

So you don't have any contracted hours then, just a poorly worded zero hours agreement?

Or does it say "you will be required for 35-40 hours a week"?

Maybe when its stated about the 17 week period, they actually mean averaged over that period?

barr182

Yeah sorry thats what i meant, My manager said to me they can change my hours below my contracted for 17 weeks.

My contract has a statement such as " My usual working hours will be....." and the dotted line was filled in by my manager. It says " My usual working hours will be 35-40"

Russe11

barr182 wrote: »

Yeah sorry thats what i meant, My manager said to me they can change my hours below my contracted for 17 weeks.

My contract has a statement such as " My usual working hours will be....." and the dotted line was filled in by my manager. It says " My usual working hours will be 35-40"

Well I have no idea where that sort of poorly worded term puts you i'm afraid.

Its some thing I would of cleared up before I started, is it 35 contracted hours, is it 40 contracted hours or is it 37.5hours averaged over 17 weeks.

Is this the hospitality trade?

Why they didn't just say 37.5 hours, but you are required to be flexible on hours depending on the needs of the business, you may be required to do less or more hours as and when needed, your contracted hours will be observed over a 17 week period.

I think you need to clarify first what the contract means and that as you are doing less hours now, that you will be getting more hours in the future and should you not, that then you will be paid the outstanding hours as and when the 17 week period comes round.

SarEl

I don't agree that the contract is poorly worded at all - it is very well worded indeed. The key term is not how many hours it says - it is the fact that the employer has an absolute right to vary those hours or lay off without pay.

I have no idea what the reference to 17 weeks is about - that bit is utter nonsense. If you are put on short time (less than your contractual hours) for a period of 4 weeks in a row or 6 weeks out of 13, then you can ask to be made redundant and the employer must either agree or restore your hours. But if this has been going on for a long time, as you say it has, then you may have missed your shot at this. And besides which - all that potentially gets you is unemployed with a few weeks wages.

getmore4less

SarEl wrote: »

I don't agree that the contract is poorly worded at all - it is very well worded indeed. The key term is not how many hours it says - it is the fact that the employer has an absolute right to vary those hours or lay off without pay.

I have no idea what the reference to 17 weeks is about - that bit is utter nonsense. If you are put on short time (less than your contractual hours) for a period of 4 weeks in a row or 6 weeks out of 13, then you can ask to be made redundant and the employer must either agree or restore your hours. But if this has been going on for a long time, as you say it has, then you may have missed your shot at this. And besides which - all that potentially gets you is unemployed with a few weeks wages.

AIUI(147.2) for a week to count as short time towards a redundancy claim it requires the pay to be below 50%.

They have a handy clause to get round that one

SarEl

getmore4less wrote: »

AIUI(147.2) for a week to count as short time towards a redundancy claim it requires the pay to be below 50%.

They have a handy clause to get round that one

Thanks for that clarification - short time working isn't something that I ever deal with, so I hadn't been conscious of the fact that it needed to drop to below 50%.

In which case this contractual clause is exceedingly well worded and covers all their bases. The OP's only choice would be to find new employment - they could get away with this for ever. Effectively this is a variable hours contract dressed up to look like fixed hours.

Russe11

SarEl wrote: »

Thanks for that clarification - short time working isn't something that I ever deal with, so I hadn't been conscious of the fact that it needed to drop to below 50%.

In which case this contractual clause is exceedingly well worded and covers all their bases. The OP's only choice would be to find new employment - they could get away with this for ever. Effectively this is a variable hours contract dressed up to look like fixed hours.

if making something appear, which it is not, due to the way it has been worded, that makes it poorly worded in my opinion.

Maybe if there was something like... "for the avoidance of doubt no hours worked under this agreement are garenteed" or simular.

Well worded contracts should be clear and concise, especially in the case of low paid workers.

I fail to understand why the area is not regualted, a standardised set of contract terms and phrases that can be used, so that its clear that at least the minimum entitlements are observed by both employer and employee.