Unpaid overtime

geelamch

Wife has received a new contract. It states that the employee will work a 37 hour week plus Sunday's which will be paid at normal rate. The next paragraph states that she will be expected to work additional hours as required : to accommodate sickness,training and staff shortages, this will attract no payment or hours in lieu.
I don't think this is a fair contract .she is salaried but previously only contracted to 37 hours plus Sunday's. Can you be forced to work for no reward ?

Takeaway_Addict

as long as it doesn't take her under NMW then yes.

She could always refuse the change of contract but that runs risks in itself.

Standard questions: How long has she worked there and is she a union member?

geelamch

She has been there for 16 years ,and a union member.
The point being that last week she worked an additional 12.6 hours and is at 10.8 hours already this week.she is not alone in this.
This would mean that an employer can force people to work as much unpaid overtime as they require and pay them them zero. Surely not

Takeaway_Addict

geelamch wrote: »

She has been there for 16 years ,and a union member.
The point being that last week she worked an additional 12.6 hours and is at 10.8 hours already this week.she is not alone in this.
This would mean that an employer can force people to work as much unpaid overtime as they require and pay them them zero. Surely not

well, no...did you not read the part about it not taking them under NMW?

She needs to get onto the union really.

getmore4less

Become the next staff shortage.

get the union on the case if OT is becoming excessive for the pay.

ohreally

geelamch wrote: »

Wife has received a new contract.....

this will attract no payment or hours in lieu.

This is concerning, assuming there is a consultation agreement with the TU, why was this agreed?

TheKeymeister

Sorry to jump in on this thread, it is related to unpaid overtime. My partner is in a situation at the moment regarding unpaid overtime every day, she works shifts and there is no overlap between say shift 1 finishing and shift 2 starting. Shift 2 would start immediately, but shift 1 cannot finish until relieved by a supervisor, and whether or not they stick to the finish time seems to occur at their discretion, which is a problem when it is approximately half an hour per day 6 days a week. This has been raised as part of a grievance, the initial response from HR was "its company policy" to work unpaid at the end of shifts like that, with no chance of TOIL or overtime being possible. Nothing in her contract mentions this, and she is on minimum wage.

These lot love to totally ignore various laws, so far I've managed to get them to understand that a person finishing a shift at 11pm and starting again at 6am the following day isn't acceptable, and they've implemented the 11 hour rest period. It seems that because it's a minimum wage job, they expect people to not know about employment law, and they certainly don't understand it at supervisor and first level manager level.

Another_not_new_user

TheKeymeister wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on this thread, it is related to unpaid overtime. My partner is in a situation at the moment regarding unpaid overtime every day, she works shifts and there is no overlap between say shift 1 finishing and shift 2 starting. Shift 2 would start immediately, but shift 1 cannot finish until relieved by a supervisor, and whether or not they stick to the finish time seems to occur at their discretion, which is a problem when it is approximately half an hour per day 6 days a week. This has been raised as part of a grievance, the initial response from HR was "its company policy" to work unpaid at the end of shifts like that, with no chance of TOIL or overtime being possible. Nothing in her contract mentions this, and she is on minimum wage.

These lot love to totally ignore various laws, so far I've managed to get them to understand that a person finishing a shift at 11pm and starting again at 6am the following day isn't acceptable, and they've implemented the 11 hour rest period. It seems that because it's a minimum wage job, they expect people to not know about employment law, and they certainly don't understand it at supervisor and first level manager level.

I agree entirely about employers assuming ignorance. And not just amongst NMW workers. Unfortunately they are usually correct.


But they have raised a grievance which is not concluded. What is the question? It seems they need to see what the outcome of the grievance is.


Is this care work? because it sounds like it may be.

getmore4less

TheKeymeister wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on this thread, it is related to unpaid overtime. My partner is in a situation at the moment regarding unpaid overtime every day, she works shifts and there is no overlap between say shift 1 finishing and shift 2 starting. Shift 2 would start immediately, but shift 1 cannot finish until relieved by a supervisor, and whether or not they stick to the finish time seems to occur at their discretion, which is a problem when it is approximately half an hour per day 6 days a week. This has been raised as part of a grievance, the initial response from HR was "its company policy" to work unpaid at the end of shifts like that, with no chance of TOIL or overtime being possible. Nothing in her contract mentions this, and she is on minimum wage.

These lot love to totally ignore various laws, so far I've managed to get them to understand that a person finishing a shift at 11pm and starting again at 6am the following day isn't acceptable, and they've implemented the 11 hour rest period. It seems that because it's a minimum wage job, they expect people to not know about employment law, and they certainly don't understand it at supervisor and first level manager level.

That takes the pay below NMW and the grievance needs to be raised based on that specific point with a claim for back pay.

make sure you have the record of all the hours being claimed.

Or see if the NMW line will take up the case.

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/worker-disputes-over-minimum-wage

the_donchichio

Due to the current economical climate nearly all companies are somehow cutting costs to become "more competitive" or "stay afloat" etc

OP's situation is a clear example of exploitation...its a false economy particularly if one person is working for free then another, somewhere in a gated community or ivory tower is becoming richer

TheKeymeister

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

I agree entirely about employers assuming ignorance. And not just amongst NMW workers. Unfortunately they are usually correct.


But they have raised a grievance which is not concluded. What is the question? It seems they need to see what the outcome of the grievance is.


Is this care work? because it sounds like it may be.

I was a union rep at my previous job at a privatised company, seeing how employers in the "real world" operate shocked me. One of the worst things in my opinion was the introduction of a charge for employment tribunals, most employers know that the cost is prohibitive for lower paid workers (and many aren't in a union) and therefore get away with so much without being challenged.

We're still waiting for the outcome of the grievance as the HR rep that attended is on holiday, so I will wait and see what they come up with first. I think they are running scared at the moment, as I was allowed to attend the previous grievance but told no this time. She works at a convenience store, but I know what you mean about the trouble with care work!

getmore4less wrote: »

That takes the pay below NMW and the grievance needs to be raised based on that specific point with a claim for back pay.

make sure you have the record of all the hours being claimed.

Or see if the NMW line will take up the case.

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/worker-disputes-over-minimum-wage

Thanks for that, we will await the outcome of the grievance and take it from there.

the_donchichio wrote: »

Due to the current economical climate nearly all companies are somehow cutting costs to become "more competitive" or "stay afloat" etc

The trouble is, in most cases I've seen that is nothing more than an excuse to increase profits