MSE News: Overtime should count towards holiday pay, rules tribunal

PlymouthMaid

When we do extra hours in my job we have it as TOIL so no extra pay is involved anyway. It is quite hard to be able to use the TOIL as, of course, it then puts you behind that week on the work so you need to more hours. I can see how in some situations it should give you more annual leave or holiday pay if you usually work a 45 hour week but are doing 60 hours but it still seems a bit wonky if you are getting an enhanced hourly rate for the overtime. I would much rather see firms hiring casual workers when needed than giving long term employees the 'perk' of overtime.

h15t0r1an

I know some employers have been abusing this and classing hours they require to be worked regularly as "overtime" so that they don't have to pay holiday pay on that proportion of the wages.

However I sincerely hope the requirement to pay holiday pay on this type of overtime is not backdated. It is simply not practical to hit employers with the lump sums that would be demanded. So let's just go forward with it fairer in the future.

Another thought that occurs to me is that it would naturally follow that payments for overtime that qualifies as regular, are now also pensionable.

Lastly I do wish the same amount of time had been spent trying to outlaw zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts take us back to the 1930's, when men went down to the docks hoping to be selected to obtain work that day so they could feed their families. Zero hours contracts should be made illegal immediately. Zero hours contracts are one reason I don't shop at Tesco much as they use these a lot. Or, at least, an employer should be obliged to guarantee payment for, say, 75% of the hours the employee is available for work.

Takeaway_Addict

h15t0r1an wrote: »

I know some employers have been abusing this and classing hours they require to be worked regularly as "overtime" so that they don't have to pay holiday pay on that proportion of the wages.

However I sincerely hope the requirement to pay holiday pay on this type of overtime is not backdated. It is simply not practical to hit employers with the lump sums that would be demanded. So let's just go forward with it fairer in the future.

Another thought that occurs to me is that it would naturally follow that payments for overtime that qualifies as regular, are now also pensionable.

Lastly I do wish the same amount of time had been spent trying to outlaw zero hours contracts. They take us back to the 1930's, when men went down to the docks hoping to be selected to obtain work that day so they could feed their families. Zero contracts should be illegal. Or, at least, an employer should be obliged to guarantee payment for, say, 75% of the hours the employee is available for work.

I'd love to know how the zero hours (which work well for the majority of people http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/cipd-research-zero-hours-contracts-unfairly-demonised-oversimplified-261113.aspx ) would be stopped by Lieber .

Lieber: Zero hour contracts are now banned
Employers: Ok, here's your 1 hour a week contract...

I do think though that compensation for a shift cancelled within 24 hours of it starting would be fair.

eamon

It will be interesting to read/hear the spin when this gets overturned and it will as to how this action is great victory for the hard working tax payer!

zagfles

SnowMan wrote: »

A good summary of the judgement (and the 3 month employment tribunal rule) can be found on the ACAS website (scroll down to the section 'Holiday pay and Overtime Update: 4 November 2014'

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1374#EATovertime

It's odd they don't distinguish between overtime paid at flat hourly rate and overtime paid at enhanced rates. Paying at enhanced rates effectively includes holiday pay, that the point of it (or at least part of the point - there may also be a premium for unsocial hours).

theoretica

While it may cause a blip in the short term, in the medium term surely businesses will just take this into account when negotiating salaries and payrises and maybe changing contracts which offer enhanced overtime pay.

dori2o

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I'd love to know how the zero hours (which work well for the majority of people http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/cipd-research-zero-hours-contracts-unfairly-demonised-oversimplified-261113.aspx ) would be stopped by Lieber .

Lieber: Zero hour contracts are now banned
Employers: Ok, here's your 1 hour a week contract...

I do think though that compensation for a shift cancelled within 24 hours of it starting would be fair.

I don't think there should be a blanket ban of ZHC's, but they should be limited in their use.

Compainies such as Sportsdirect.com use ZHC's as their standard contract for all their store assistants, in the majority of stores the only people on full time contracts are the store managers.

This type of use is where they are being mis-used.

Every shop in the country can provide a base-line for footfall into their business throughout the year. For a sports shop (I worked in one whilst at school) not in a World Cup/Euro Championships year you know that mid July to September is going to be very busy. The kids are off school, people are going on Holiday, and the Football season is about to start and new kits are launched. It's also back to school time at the back end of this timeframe.

Christmas (Mid Oct to end Dec) will be busy with people buying gifts for kids etc.

April/May Cricket season/Rugby League starts.

These are the times that ZHC's would be most beneficially used, and the rest of the year there should be permanent p/t or even f/t staff in the store with the odd ZHC employee used to cover holidays/sickness etc.

There needs to be rules/legislture intoduced to limit the use of ZHC's and prevent them being a companies standard form of contract.

At the same time the Government should make it illegal to include exclusivity clauses in contracts which prevent many people on these ZHC''s and other part time (and in some limited cases full time) contracts from gaining employment with another employer during their non working hours.

_Mal

I want to ask would this apply to any extra shift money that is earned? I get an extra 20% for working shifts but only basic for the same hours if i take holiday.

amiehall

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Of course it does. If someone is paying double time for overtime and then have to pay more for holiday pay it will then make the employer think...'I might as well hire someone else on the standard rate and stop employee X's over time'

Oh I can absolutely see why rates of enhanced pay for overtime might be reassessed but if an employer currently pays a premium for overtime and no holiday, they can easily ensure their overall overtime costs are the same. If they would rather pay overtime than hire atm, there's no reason that wouldn't continue. This mainly protects lower paid workers on low hours contracts with no additional overtime pay and I think that's a group worth protecting.

getmore4less

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I'd love to know how the zero hours (which work well for the majority of people http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/cipd-research-zero-hours-contracts-unfairly-demonised-oversimplified-261113.aspx ) would be stopped by Lieber .

Lieber: Zero hour contracts are now banned
Employers: Ok, here's your 1 hour a week contract...

I do think though that compensation for a shift cancelled within 24 hours of it starting would be fair.

They just need to enforce mutual agreement once agreed they are contractual you need to turn up and you get paid even if the employer has no work.

Same with holiday once approved they become contractual and need mutual agreement to change.