Can i get a second opinion on this please..

lill

Hi all, can I ask your opinion on a situation im in regarding a new job I have recently started .

The job was advertised as 16 hours minimum pro rata only. They interviewed 6 people and employed 2 myself and another guy ( im female btw)
when I was phoned with the offer of employment by the person who is now my line manager and in charge of arranging the rotas, I was told that the hours could increase as they take on more work, which I agreed to. The job was then offered to me as 16 hours over 2 days term time only with the option to go full time term time only at a later stage as the workload increases.

On my first day at work I was again told by my line manager and also by the HR dept that the job would become full time - term time only. His actual words were " we are looking for people to work full time - term time only” At every stage I have expressed an interest for the full time hours.

Since then ive had my written contract and had to send it back as it was incorrect, it had my salary calculated for 16 hours pro rata, my holiday entitlement down as 9.5 days but the hours were down as 37.5.

Last week I had to see my line manager on an admin matter and at the same time gave my contract back to the HR dept.
while there my line manager asked if I would like to sort out an extra day for September, I agreed and while he was looking to see what extra shifts to give me, I asked if he wanted to inform HR of the additional hours as the contracts were going to have to be redone and it would save having to have them redone again in sept, and that HR were already aware that the position was to become full time.

At that point he did a complete turn around and said that what he was looking for was " flexible people like yourself who I can use as cover for when people are on holiday or off sick"
I then said that I would only be interested in additional shifts if my contracted hours were increased, to which he replied that he did not know what was happening with our clients yet, and it could be that if a client wanted our services for say 12 weeks I would get the additional 12 weeks and then at the end of that time he wants to be able to put me back down to 16 hours because " you don’t want to be sitting around here getting bored".
My reply to that was " why would I agree to something like that when I could be doing contract work for a lot more money than im being paid here?" It was left with out arranging my additional shift and him saying he would speak to HR to see if what I was asking was possible.

I have now had chance to speak to another guy who was employed for the same position as myself and started work around 2-3 weeks after myself.
It turns out that he is already behind asked to work 4 days per week despite the fact that when he was given the offer over the phone he had said that he only wanted to work 3 days.

As I only started the job on the recently im still in my probationary period so I don’t want to start rocking the boat but I do feel that im being treated unfavourably in comparison to the other employee taken on at the same time for the same job.
I don’t think its down to experience or qualifications as when we were discussing previous jobs the other guy said I was probably more experienced than him as I had been working in my last job which is a similar role for 9 years where as his experience was only 2-3 years.

We are both very unhappy at the moment, neither of us have the hours we want and we are both concerned about the discrepancies in our contracts, we are trying to arrange a time that we can both go in to speak to HR and see if we can find out that exactly is going on.

dmg24

Hi lill,

You haven't actually stated what information you require?

You are contracted to work 16 hours, so any possibility of future hours is purely that, a possibility.

I cannot see that you have been discriminated against. However, if you are concerned that you colleague got offered extra hours and you didn't, then ask why. My feeling about when you last spoke to your line manager about this is that you were quite confrontational, perhaps go in with a different demeanour next time?

lill

I accepted the job on the basis that it was 16 hours to be increased to full time as the work load increased, now im being told that im not actually going to be put onto a full time contract but used as a floater just covering for sickness and holiday leave, and casual contracts.
Im obviously now VERY worried, I have given up a full time position to take this post so that I can work term time only, on the understanding that it would become full time, the hours are obviously there as the other guy has more hours than he wants, even though we are not actually doing the job at present and are only shadowing to learn the ropes..

What im asking is how do I approach this without getting marked down as a trouble maker and not getting through the probationary period.
how would anyone feel to learn that someone else taken on for the same job is effectively being paid twice the salary they are on for the same job

dmg24

I accepted the job on the basis that it was 16 hours to be increased to full time as the work load increased

Was this stated in writing? If not, then you do not a have a leg to stand on I'm afraid.

The way to approach this is to ask CALMLY if there is a reason why your colleague has been offered more hours.

Even your posts are getting confrontational - you need to think about what you are going to say beforehand, and do not get worked up about it. Have a rant at home later, not at your line manager!

lill

I know im coming across as confrontational now and i apologize for that but I wasn't confrontational in the discussion as I had already prepared what I was going to say were I to be offered more hours ie that i would want to be made the offer in writing for any permanent arrangement, this line manager had already suggested that i come to work for training during my time off voluntarily and not be paid for it.
So I was prepared for them to try to get me to do more hours and not be contracted for them so they would only have to pay me 16 hours during holidays instead of 37.5 pro rata.

The part about being kept on 16 hours and used as a filler to cover for holiday and sickness and have extra days for periods of time them put back to 16 came totally out of the blue and did catch me off guard. And even then i said Im willing to provide cover in an emergency if someone is off sick so long as I have notice, but I would not want that to be a permanent arrangement.

But yes your right unless i have all this down in writing the fact that he has said the job will become full time on several occasions, and the HE dept has said it will become full time, I don't have a leg to stand on.

I suppose my only option now is to allow the other guy to do all the talking and get all the other issues sorted out ( we have agreed between ourselves to go in to see HR together to discuss other things that have to be sorted out) and in the mean time concentrate on improving my employment prospects else where.

Thanks It can be really useful to vent and sort things out in your own mind even if the reply isn't what you want to hear.

lill

ok how does this sound?
If i phone up the manager in charge of my contract and tell them I want to sort out my arrangements for September (in regard to enrolling in college which was what I said i was intending to do with my days off work at the interview) that I have been putting off committing myself to the course due to their saying the job would become full time, but i have since been told that i would be providing holiday and sick cover and not taken on as full time.

So I need to know from them if I should go ahead and enroll or if they will be wanting me to extend my contracted hours. Does that sound reasonable?

dmg24

That sounds good to me, almost play it quite innocently, as if you are trying to help them out - is it ok for you to enrol on a college course, or will you be needed at work?

The way I interpret it is that you have not been told they have not said that the hours are not available, just that they cannot guarantee them. Hope is not lost yet!

If it is any help, I know someone on a sixteen hour contract (albeit at Tesco, so a bit different!), he never does less than sixty hours a week! (He's only eighteen, I wouldn't have the energy to do nearly that many!).

Maybe try to get an idea of what potential contracts are coming up? Ask if there is anything that you can do to help them get the contracts?

No need for apologies on here. This is the place that you can vent when you get home! x

lill

dmg24 wrote: »

The way I interpret it is that you have not been told they have not said that the hours are not available, just that they cannot guarantee them

what has changed is that this person has gone from saying that ' we want people who are full time - term time only' to ' we want people who are flexible 'like yourself' who we can send to jobs to cover for people who are off sick or on holiday'
The hours ARE available. I know they are as the person taken on at the same time as me is doing more hours than they actually want, and i feel that i have been ( for want of a better word) lured into this job on a false pretext ie that the job will become full time, but now I cant go back to my old job the job is suddenly part time - floating cover.

Even if they were to give me extra hours during term time my salary would be lower than the other guys because his would be calculated at 37.5 pro hours rata over the year, but mine would be calculated at 16 pro rata then additional hours paid at the end of that month, which would mean that for 13 weeks of the year I would be paid for 16 hours pro rata, but the other guy would be paid for 37.5 pro rata.

which means that the difference in salary from my old wage to this will have taken a massive drop rather than the small drop that i was allowing for

dmg24

Even if they were to give me extra hours during term time my salary would be lower than the other guys because his would be calculated at 37.5 pro hours rata over the year, but mine would be calculated at 16 pro rata then additional hours paid at the end of that month, which would mean that for 13 weeks of the year I would be paid for 16 hours pro rata, but the other guy would be paid for 37.5 pro rata.

I hadn't thought about it that way, and that does make it seem very unfair, but I really can't think of a way around that (without kicking up one hell of a fuss).

My advice is crossing with your other post, so I might end up repeating myself a bit!

On the other post I suggested you and your colleague sharing out the hours between the two of you, on a mutual agreement basis. However, that will not get round the contractual issue.

Another possibility, and without any ill will meant towards your colleague, do you think he will stick at the job? If the hours are too much for him, perhaps he will leave, and/ or request a reduction in hours, thereby leaving the door open for you?

lill

well one of the things he has said is that he wants to bring up his hours when he speaks to HR re our contracts, that we still haven't had yet, so yes in the short term that's all well and good.

At the back of my mind all this time though is the reason I left my other place. I was sick of being passed over for job opportunities training etc. even though i was the longest serving employee in the team the most experienced, and had total responsibility for a whole building.
when i left and had my exit interview I told them all the reasons why i felt I had no future with that employer.

Im told that after this ( while i was still working my notice so the atmosphere was quite bad before i left) the head HR called a meeting of senior management team and gave my head of dept a real telling off over some of the work practices, such as issues raised during appraisal not being acted upon etc.

So for me it's a case of ' oh no here we go again' and i know that once you have accepted a certain working practice for 3 months you are deemed to have accepted it, so im caught between a rock and a hard place, my probation is 3 months but i cant just shut up and get on with it or it will be seen that im accepting these terms and conditions.


oh yes i forgot to mention, i also heard that they are advertising again for people to work full time term time only, they also have 4-5 people working for them from an agency so there really isn't an issue of hours available.

dmg24

Potentially good news about your colleague, for you at least!

I know what you mean about history repeating itself, it has happened to me too. It is not you, I think it is just the way organisations work. They make all the right noises about changing, but you can bet that you won't be the last that it will happen to.

Acceptance of a certain working practice isn't necessarily based upon a length of time. Also, because you are accepting (or not!) a contractual term the concept that you are referring to isn't really relevant. You are thinking more of where an employer varies a contractual term without the employees immediate agreement.

I do think that this situation is a bit of a wait and see one. You never know, you could still get the extra hours and the amended contract.

Looking at it another way, I would let your colleague approach HR. Maybe a bit selfish, but perhaps he could be seen to be the trouble maker and not you? Not particularly ethical, but you do need to put yourself first x