Compulsory Overtime Clause

tripled

Would anyone know, where a contract has a clause as below, does the employee only have to do compulsory overtime if their performance is unsatisfactory or simply at the employer's whim? Also, if the employee has set working hours in their contract, is the employee free to dictate the times they are available to do compulsory additional hours (if outside those set times)?

In addition to the hours specified above you may be required to work compulsory additional hours in order to perform your duties to your employer’s satisfaction.

MEM62

Very strange wording. What industry do you work in?

BoJangles_2

Strange wording maybe but I don't think this is out of the ordinary.

InsideInsurance

In a previous life I had a job where overtime was compulsory, and everyones set hours/ shifts were 3 hours short of their working hours. A few weeks before a notice was put up on the board on what overtime was available and you had to go and put your name against the slot(s) you wanted with it being a minimum of 3 hours you were supposed to request.

In practice some people always wanted to do the same and if they werent in at 8am on Monday when the list went up then they'd get someone who was to do put their name up for them.

Sometimes there wasnt enough overtime required for everyone to do the 3 hours so those that were late didnt get it but therefore didnt get paid for the short hours.

Ultimately if there were no shifts you could do because of other commitments then it went down the disciplinary route starting with a handslap and being told to try earlier.



Agree with the other poster that the wording is odd and would suggest that there is some shortfall required though, if for example this was a telesales role, it could be a short fall in sales made which may be of no fault of your own - a bum call list where everyones already been tried 5 times before.

stevemLS

I don't think the wording is particularly unusual and don't believe it carries with it any implication of poor performance.

getmore4less

The key missing bits

is paid or unpaid?
are the hours allready full time.
holiday accrual on overtime.

If low pay this may be a problem unpaid due to NMW.

In order to cap the potential for excessive abuse don't opt out of working time.

tripled

Thanks for the replies so far To clarify a few points raised:

• This role is a professional role
• There are set full-time working hours in the contract (this would be over and above those hours)
• The company has stated there will be compulsory overtime because there is a backlog of work (as opposed to any individual performance)
• The overtime is paid
• Opt-out of the working time directive formed part of the contract (along with a requirement to give three months notice to opt back in)
• The contract states there is no holiday accrual on overtime (I'm aware of the recent tribunal ruling, but that's an aside)

So I'm trying to establish whether the employee has to work the "compulsory" overtime because of this backlog of work, even if not convenient or they have prior arrangements, or only if it is to make up for unsatisfactory performance (not achieving targets within work hours for example, which is not the case here).

getmore4less

They are basically saying they are understaffed.

I would want clear guide lines on availability requirements and notice of extra hours.

Failure to comply could easy become a performance issue they just allocate the backlog.

k3lvc

There's also probably a level of personal pragmatism required depending on the severity/impact of the backlog i.e. will a contract be lost/penalty imposed etc where a period of (paid) 'overtime' will help the company to continue trading.

I'd be inclined to test the waters with an offer to work additional hours but with flexibility over when to fit with personal commitments

tripled

The employer in question has simply said that compulsory overtime, including weekend working, will be expected for the indefinite future - but without quantifying what and when. Obviously a certain amount of flexibility from an employee is prudent, but (from both the employee's perspective and mine) this seems unreasonable. They are also borrowing staff off this department to cover shortages in other departments (so the department in question would at the least have less of a backlog if they weren't providing cover).

So this is why I'm trying to establish exactly what the contract requires. It's not simply a case of being awkward, but to establish if the employee can do the overtime at a time that suits them, if indeed they need to do it at all.

Finding a new job is the obvious solution, but alas would be inconvenient for the next three months or so.

stevemLS

My view is that both parties would need to be reasonable in their requirements.

So, you wouldn't be able to say that you were not available for the next 3 months, but would be able to give advance notice of non-availability. They in turn would not be able to say that you have to come in next weekend when you were planning to go to a wedding (just examples).