Not given contracted hours, manager sending me home..

SarEl

Russe11 wrote: »

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.

I beg to differ - what you are arguing is a moral position, which I do not disagree with on the basis of sentiment. But the terms quoted by Barr182 are very clear and concise. They leave no room for doubt. That is what contractual terms should be - and they are. What is more probable is that Barr182 hadn't properly read them until now - because few people do read their written statements properly - because if s/he had they would have known that the hours can be varied, up or down, permanantly or temporarily.

And the clause you are suggesting, based, I think, on your assumption that this is a poorly worded zero hours contract, is far worse! This is categorically not a zero hours contract. A zero hours contract is something entirely different. And must be specified as such, because people with zero hours contracts are not employees, they are workers. Since Barr182 has a set of "usual" hours, albeit with the employer having the power to vary these at will, they still do have the rights attached to short time working etc - they simply haven't had their hours reduced to the point where these apply. People on zero hours contracts have no such rights, and their choice is to accept or refuse the hours - they will never be on "short time" and they will never qualify for redundancy pay.

Russe11

SarEl wrote: »

I beg to differ - what you are arguing is a moral position, which I do not disagree with on the basis of sentiment. But the terms quoted by Barr182 are very clear and concise. They leave no room for doubt. That is what contractual terms should be - and they are. What is more probable is that Barr182 hadn't properly read them until now - because few people do read their written statements properly - because if s/he had they would have known that the hours can be varied, up or down, permanantly or temporarily.

And the clause you are suggesting, based, I think, on your assumption that this is a poorly worded zero hours contract, is far worse! This is categorically not a zero hours contract. A zero hours contract is something entirely different. And must be specified as such, because people with zero hours contracts are not employees, they are workers. Since Barr182 has a set of "usual" hours, albeit with the employer having the power to vary these at will, they still do have the rights attached to short time working etc - they simply haven't had their hours reduced to the point where these apply. People on zero hours contracts have no such rights, and their choice is to accept or refuse the hours - they will never be on "short time" and they will never qualify for redundancy pay.

So why don't they say "you will be required towork on average of 0-40 hours a week" instead of "35-40"? then that would be much simpler.

with regards to zero hours, by redundency you also mean notice pay?

SarEl

Russe11 wrote: »

So why don't they say "you will be required towork on average of 0-40 hours a week" instead of "35-40"? then that would be much simpler.

with regards to zero hours, by redundency you also mean notice pay?

Well they could say that - then it would be a zero hours contract! I think that the point you are missing is that there would be legal repercussions of the current contract being varied too much. It may not feel that way to Barr128 right now, but what it does say is definitely in the employees interests. To an extent, and it is always difficult to draw broad comparisons, with the exception of the ability to not pay for short time or lay off (which must be stated in writing), the employer is actually doing nothing that any employer cannot do - they are in fact being transparent about it. It would be a matter of relative ease to achieve this same outcome by other, entirely lawful, means. It would simply take a little longer, but once done would be less flexible - the employee might never get their hours back!

And yes, notice pay does not apply to zero hours workers. They are not employees. They have no contracts of employment. They have contracts for service - which means that the employer is not obliged to offer work and they are not obliged to take work offered. The only rights they have are those attributable to workers, not those accrued by employees.

Russe11

SarEl wrote: »

Well they could say that - then it would be a zero hours contract! I think that the point you are missing is that there would be legal repercussions of the current contract being varied too much. It may not feel that way to Barr128 right now, but what it does say is definitely in the employees interests. To an extent, and it is always difficult to draw broad comparisons, with the exception of the ability to not pay for short time or lay off (which must be stated in writing), the employer is actually doing nothing that any employer cannot do - they are in fact being transparent about it. It would be a matter of relative ease to achieve this same outcome by other, entirely lawful, means. It would simply take a little longer, but once done would be less flexible - the employee might never get their hours back!

And yes, notice pay does not apply to zero hours workers. They are not employees. They have no contracts of employment. They have contracts for service - which means that the employer is not obliged to offer work and they are not obliged to take work offered. The only rights they have are those attributable to workers, not those accrued by employees.

btw i'm not trying to argue, though I have hijacked this thread.

so why don't they put 1-40 hours, 10-40 hours or any other range?

so it does not become zero hours.

getmore4less

Russe11 wrote: »

btw i'm not trying to argue, though I have hijacked this thread.

so why don't they put 1-40 hours, 10-40 hours or any other range?

so it does not become zero hours.

Most likely becuase prospective employees would catch on to what they are upto or ask questions.

Russe11

So how is ones holiday entitlement calcualted, on a 35 hour working week, a 40 hour working week or a 35-40 hour working week?

Since that would the definition in the contract of the weeks pay a 35-40 hour week.

Questions should be asked at the time of starting the job, but I can fully understand that though its a contract agreed between two parties, its more the case of this is what the contract says like it or lump it.

pelirocco

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.

I suspect the manager has got the 17 weeks from the working time directive , and has confused it with short time working ?

SarEl

Russe11 wrote: »

btw i'm not trying to argue, though I have hijacked this thread.

so why don't they put 1-40 hours, 10-40 hours or any other range?

so it does not become zero hours.

No I get that you are asking the question!

TBH I am not sure why the employer has done it this way. It could, just as easily have been 18, 27, or 40 - with no range. I agree that the 35 - 40 is "odd", it just isn't really unlawful. Sometimes the rationale of employers escapes me and this is one of them times!

If the contractual hours vary then in a case like this the holiday would be calculated over a 17 week period - I think it's 17 weeks! Again, calculating holidays are not something barristers deal with an awful lot since our bills are a bit high for things like that to be on our common agenda

If you want an honest answer to why it's all like this I generally favour the simplest answer - the manager doesn't know what they are doing! Conspiracies are fun, but awfully hard work and most employers don't have it in them!

SarEl

pelirocco wrote: »

I suspect the manager has got the 17 weeks from the working time directive , and has confused it with short time working ?

Possibly, who knows? I think the manager appears to be generally confused. Perhaps a good reason to be looking for new employment?