Suspect Pro Rata calculation?

hartski

Help please with a rather bolshy payroll dept who I very little faith in so far....

Started a new role this month, but am only working pro rata (3 days per week, 24 hrs from 40)

I started on w/c 21st so did 3 days, and again the following week which took me to the end of Jan. I have been paid incorrectly as a full time employee and not pro rata, and so they wish to claim some back. Fair enough. A pain, but fair enough.

We differ however in how much they should be claiming back, and I have been given a rather ropey explanation as to how its been calculated. Essentially my pro rata'd monthly salary (3 fifths of the FT salary / 12) has then been divided by 31 (days in Jan) and multiplied by 11 (days in January from 21st to 31st) to give the amount to claw back.

I disagree with this as if the same had happened in Feb, applying the same calculation (using 11 days again) I would have been paid more.. hope you're still with me.

I contend that they should be doing it like this: Pro rata'd annual salary / 52 / 40 = hourly rate(HR). HR*8 (hours a day)*6 (days worked in month) = Gross pay for month, pro rata'd

This is their 'official' explanation:
Annual salary / 12 to giveyour monthly salary and then if you start say the 15th of the monththen you are paid a pro rata amount according to the amount of days in themonth, i.e. using the 15th as the start date your salary would beworked out the following way

Annual salary/12 x (17/31,16/30 or 14/28) depending on the month that you start working forus, the same calculation is used to calculate salary due for any leavers


Who's right? To me they are mixing a fixed calculation (monthly salary) with a variable (days of the month - depending on which month it is)

Thank you.

Pete111

TBH Most employers (including ourselves) would calculate a full time day rate by dividing a salary by 260 (working days in the year)

If you work only three days a week then its salary/156*relevant days owed etc

stix62

hartski - your way is correct and Pete111's post confirms that.

It should be worked out down to a hourly/daily rate and go from there.

hartski

Pete111 - Thanks. That calculation also comes up with exactly what I believe I should have been paid.

Anyone else?

What advice can you give about how to deal with this?

Thanks again

Pete111

hartski wrote: »

Pete111 - Thanks. That calculation also comes up with exactly what I believe I should have been paid.

Anyone else?

What advice can you give about how to deal with this?

Thanks again

You may not be able to force them to change their calculation at all..and if you did it would only be after making a real song and dance.

Perhaps best is to arrange a meeting to explain your thoughts and see if they will relook at their methods - you do have logic on your side at least!

agrinnall

My employer uses the same calculation method as the OP's does, which does mean the daily rate varies from month to month. Once they'd explained it to me and I'd done a few sums in a spreadsheet it seemed reasonable, I don't think you'll lose out by much if anything.

PS I'm assuming that like me you are salaried rather than on an hourly rate.

getmore4less

agrinnall wrote: »

My employer uses the same calculation method as the OP's does, which does mean the daily rate varies from month to month. Once they'd explained it to me and I'd done a few sums in a spreadsheet it seemed reasonable, I don't think you'll lose out by much if anything.

PS I'm assuming that like me you are salaried rather than on an hourly rate.

It makes a big difference if you use all the days in the month(7day weeks) but full time is only a 5 day week

take a £20k a year person working all of jan.

20/12 is £1666.67
daily is 53.76.
work 23days so only get paid £1236.56

£430.11 short.

The trick with any algorithm is make sure it works for full timers as well as part timers.

If full timers don't get the same pay the algorithm is wrong.

hartski

agrinall, its enough of a difference to warrant a fight. We're about £145 apart so when you work part time, that makes a difference.

I've been out of work since April, I'm having to pay a month childcare costs upfront in cash, plus train commuting to work, they've loaded my initial salary incorrectly, have lied to me about receiving my P45 (claimed I never sent it then it mysteriously arrived yesterday), and put me on a tax code which denotes this is 2nd job!

For multi billion pound organisation this is a drop in the ocean to them, but makes a big difference to me....

Pete111

hartski wrote: »

agrinall, its enough of a difference to warrant a fight. We're about £145 apart so when you work part time, that makes a difference.

I've been out of work since April, I'm having to pay a month childcare costs upfront in cash, plus train commuting to work, they've loaded my initial salary incorrectly, have lied to me about receiving my P45 (claimed I never sent it then it mysteriously arrived yesterday), and put me on a tax code which denotes this is 2nd job!

For multi billion pound organisation this is a drop in the ocean to them, but makes a big difference to me....

I'm sorry to say that you stand a better chance convincing a small operation to do it 'your way' . Big firms are usually much more inflexible. (But good luck!)

hartski

Pete111 wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that you stand a better chance convincing a small operation to do it 'your way' . Big firms are usually much more inflexible. (But good luck!)

Thanks Pete... I'm at that level of thinking as well. The payroll team dont even have the courtesy to talk or explain to me directly. They are passing messages through someone else... pretty disgusted with the whole affair really.

Will probably stick a grievance in, agree to claw back over a number of months and suggest they get their house in order. Barely even had an apology...

notanewuser

I'm sure I've read somewhere that public sector employers (civil service etc) use the days in the month calculation that the OP's employer uses.........