Everyone got a cost of living increase but me. Is this legal?

weimaranermerlin

About 2 weeks ago my company announced that we would receive a 3% cost of living increase. Yesterday my boss took me to one side and told me that they had decided that I wouldn't receive the increase due to my job changing in the last year.
About 3 months ago I was offered a "job with less responsibility" since me as well as my employer realised that it wasn't really feasible to do my job on a part-time basis and employed someone else who would do it full-time. I now wonder if it is legal for them to decide not to give me the cost of living increase. I'm not so much bothered about the money but the principle taht they went out of their way to do this. As my husbnad points out that if I was working there in 10 years they would effectivly reduce my salary by half.

What should I do?

brazilianwax

Did your salary decrease when you took the reduced responsibility post or did it stay the same?

If someone coming in to do that job would earn less than you, but you've kept your salary, then effectively you've already had your increase. I doubt they're looking to make this a permanent arrangement.

weimaranermerlin

They didn't decrease my pay but then again they didn't give me a choice than to take the job with less responsibility either! I was only wondering if it was legal really since I have no real plans of staying in this job any longer than I have to...

brazilianwax

weimaranermerlin wrote: »

They didn't decrease my pay but then again they didn't give me a choice than to take the job with less responsibility either! I was only wondering if it was legal really since I have no real plans of staying in this job any longer than I have to...

They could have reduced your pay for the lower responsibility post.

There's no law that says you must get any kind of salary increase, nor that every employee must receive it.

Sounds like you got a reasonable deal (paywise) at least.

LittleVoice

If you couldn't do the job with greater responsibility then surely the only option other than the one they took would have been to say you were not capable of doing the job and dismiss you? Would you have taken that option?

As long as you are not the only one who is working part-time and other part-timers did get the 3% increase, it looks as though they have treated you fairly. This also assumes the job you are now doing would otherwise be paid more than 3% less than you are actually earning.

On the face of it, they have ring-fenced your pay, that is not decreased it but are likely to keep it at that level until it reaches what is actually the correct level. You are probably doing rather well out of this and should accept that your employer has actually been very accommodating to your needs.

ohreally

LittleVoice wrote: »

If you couldn't do the job with greater responsibility then surely the only option other than the one they took would have been to say you were not capable of doing the job and dismiss you? Would you have taken that option?

Perhaps you are being a little unkind to weimaranermerlin, after all her job was changed as a result of a requirement for it to be carried out on a full time basis. I don't recall her indicating there was a performance/competency issue at question....had there been I'm sure a reasonable employer would have looked at retraining, mentoring or implementing other support mechanisms to enable an improvement rather than dismissal.

weimaranermerlin

Thanks to all for the advice. As I said it isn't about the money but rather about ho wit was treated. I am leaving this job in September (I haven't told them yet!) since I have been offered a place on a postgraduate teacher training course. I just didn't think it was handled very well and was wondering what the legal status is.

Again, thanks to all!

LittleVoice

ohreally wrote: »

Perhaps you are being a little unkind to weimaranermerlin, after all her job was changed as a result of a requirement for it to be carried out on a full time basis. I don't recall her indicating there was a performance/competency issue at question....had there been I'm sure a reasonable employer would have looked at retraining, mentoring or implementing other support mechanisms to enable an improvement rather than dismissal.

I wasn't intending to be "unkind" but using "capability" (note: not "incompetent") in the way that it could be used by the company. It doesn't mean she was incompetent but was not capable of doing the job (in this case because of the need for full-time working). Weimaranermerlin said she was not able to do the higher responsibility work because it required full-time work.