Annualised Hours!

Maisy1980

Hi MSE members, I wonder whether someone could provide an impartial opinion?This question may be a little confusing so I will try to be as clear as possible.

I have a 37 hour a week contract. The contract specifically says 37 hours, (5.5 to be hours annualised). This means that I am not going towork 37 hours every week but it will be spread throughout the year. I do shiftwork so we can have busy periods of the year and also quiet so my hours are not always regular. I get paid the same per month regardless of the hours I work.

Unfortunately my department is being outsourced and hence we are losing our jobs. I and many others have worked far more hours than we were scheduled. Essentially, I will have worked around 50 more hours than I would have if I was simply working 37 hours a week.

Our employer has said the extra hours worked will be paid at flat rate because it is not considered overtime. Our overtime rate is 1.3. They have said it is not considered overtime because my total hours for the financial year April to April is 286, and I have not exceeded this. However,my argument is that nowhere in my contract does it state that I have 286 annualised hours to work over the year. It simply appears to state that I accrue 5.5 hours annualised per week which my employer can call upon during busy periods. In addition, we lose our jobs in December so shouldn't any annualised hour total be pro rata'd?

Could some kind soul provide an impartial opinion as to whether I am right in thinking I should be getting paid overtime because I have done more than the contracted 37 hours a week? There are quite a few of us in this situation and its worth quite a lot of money. I think our employer is trying to get out of paying overtime to save costs.

Thanks!

jobbingmusician

Sad to say, I tend to agree with your employer. I don't see any basis on which your extra hours would be considered overtime, and would be genuinely interested in any argument which did so.

Looked at from another POV - if your employer had simply given you 37 hours a week, you would have earned less and have less money in your pocket at the point of termination. (By the way, have you checked whether outsourcing is subject to TUPE? What does your union say? Have you taken any advice about this?)

What I think is MORE arguable is the fact that at the point of termination (assuming, for the moment, that TUPE does not apply) you will have accrued a certain amount of holidays. Surely the holidays should be based on the hours you have worked in this holiday year (and the % of annualised hours you have done) rather than the number of weeks worked... again, another issue on which you should take union advice.

Hoping you are actually in an union.......

Edited to add..

Maisy1980 wrote: »

In addition, we lose our jobs in December so shouldn't any annualised hour total be pro rata'd?

I don't understand this bit of the question - could you expand?

t0rt0ise

I understand what you mean about prorata to December. You mean that as you only worked 8 months of the year, the hours worked at normal time should be 8/12 of the total annual expected. That is 286 per year so 191 for the 8 months. Anything over the 191 hours should be paid at overtime rate. Common sense would say that this is right. Whether it is right legally I don't know but you could suggest it forcefully and see what they say as a start.