Change in overtime policy question.

SuperCat007

Just after some advice and opinions.

I am seriously thinking about leaving my job for various reasons, being messed around, abusive customers, etc etc, but this is one that has really pushed me over the edge. However, I don't know if it's a breach of contract or if this can just be changed as and when with no formal contractual changes.

The overtime policy changed so we no longer get paid, we earn up time off in lieu. Which is great for full time people (I guess), but as a part timer the extra money made a huge difference to my income. I had a look at my contract yesterday and it just states the differing pay scales (which I also think haven't been adhered to for full timers) but nothing about the company reserving the right to change the policy without an official contract change. I work for a massive corporation, and as far as I know this isn't a company-wide policy (I can't find anything on the internal media site), but a policy for our building. The manager said it worked great at the previous site and claiming for overtime significantly dropped (I wonder why...). But can they actually just change it like this and are we just expected to accept it? There was no discussion about this, it was announced in a morning meeting one morning.

As I said I hopefully won't be there too much longer, but it's something which has been bugging me. I've had a quick Google, but found it a bit of a minefield, so any advice or opinions would be appreciated.

agrinnall

Surely as a part-timer you wouldn't qualify for overtime until you had worked up to full time hours anyway? And the time between your contracted part time hours and the full time number would have been paid at your normal rate anyway? And that wouldn't change under the new system?

sangie595

You describe this as a policy, not a contractual term. If it is policy the employer can change their policy whenever they want - they are not required to consult with employees over policy. The fact that different parts of the company have different practices supports the opinion that it is policy and not a contractual term.

To be honest, if the company can support a time off in lieu system and still get all the work done, it would suggest that the overtime system is too generous. If people can achieve their required output without accruing much time in lieu, then one has to question why so much overtime was claimed to achieve the same thing. And since the company is not obliged to provide overtime to anyone, they are within their rights to withdraw all overtime if they wish.

SuperCat007

sangie595 wrote: »

You describe this as a policy, not a contractual term. If it is policy the employer can change their policy whenever they want - they are not required to consult with employees over policy. The fact that different parts of the company have different practices supports the opinion that it is policy and not a contractual term.

To be honest, if the company can support a time off in lieu system and still get all the work done, it would suggest that the overtime system is too generous. If people can achieve their required output without accruing much time in lieu, then one has to question why so much overtime was claimed to achieve the same thing. And since the company is not obliged to provide overtime to anyone, they are within their rights to withdraw all overtime if they wish.

Thanks, that helps. Maybe I've used the wrong words. It is set out in the contract which I signed that overtime is paid on 'xyz' terms and doesn't state that this can be changed. It does also say that overtime should be paid above basic rate for those who work for over 40 hours which I suspect hasn't been adhered to, but that isn't my problem, or the question I'm asking.

So it is set out in the contract between the employer and I, but it is a section in the contract headed 'Overtime Policy'. If that makes any difference.

To answer the particularly helpful first reply... It makes a huge difference to me, I often do extra days or come in on short notice if someone is sick. If I'm no longer paid for this and only get days off in lieu (which is what is proposed) then the job is no longer viable, I don't need the extra days off. So that added to the other bad things in the job will mean I probably won't be there much longer, unless this new overtime policy isn't actually allowed due to the contact we all signed.

sangie595

SuperCat007 wrote: »

Thanks, that helps. Maybe I've used the wrong words. It is set out in the contract which I signed that overtime is paid on 'xyz' terms and doesn't state that this can be changed. It does also say that overtime should be paid above basic rate for those who work for over 40 hours which I suspect hasn't been adhered to, but that isn't my problem, or the question I'm asking.

So it is set out in the contract between the employer and I.

In that case if it is clearly stipulated then they must consult - but it would make no difference because whether people agree or not, they can enforce the change. And you would have to object now - if you continue to work without doing so, then you will be deemed to have accepted the change anyway. Of course, as soon as you object you won't get any overtime, so it will be a moot point. You are not guaranteed overtime and that can be withdrawn at any time.

SuperCat007

sangie595 wrote: »

In that case if it is clearly stipulated then they must consult - but it would make no difference because whether people agree or not, they can enforce the change. And you would have to object now - if you continue to work without doing so, then you will be deemed to have accepted the change anyway. Of course, as soon as you object you won't get any overtime, so it will be a moot point. You are not guaranteed overtime and that can be withdrawn at any time.

Thank you, that's really helpful. It's been a pretty c***** company to work for anyway so I'm not totally surprised, though people were taking the p*** with it. Helps me make my decision about my future there though.

glentoran99

SuperCat007 wrote: »

Thanks, that helps. Maybe I've used the wrong words. It is set out in the contract which I signed that overtime is paid on 'xyz' terms and doesn't state that this can be changed. It does also say that overtime should be paid above basic rate for those who work for over 40 hours which I suspect hasn't been adhered to, but that isn't my problem, or the question I'm asking.

So it is set out in the contract between the employer and I, but it is a section in the contract headed 'Overtime Policy'. If that makes any difference.

To answer the particularly helpful first reply... It makes a huge difference to me, I often do extra days or come in on short notice if someone is sick. If I'm no longer paid for this and only get days off in lieu (which is what is proposed) then the job is no longer viable, I don't need the extra days off. So that added to the other bad things in the job will mean I probably won't be there much longer, unless this new overtime policy isn't actually allowed due to the contact we all signed.

but if your part time you wouldn't be working over 40 hours? Maybe its only hours over 40 that will get time off in lieu

SuperCat007

glentoran99 wrote: »

but if your part time you wouldn't be working over 40 hours? Maybe its only hours over 40 that will get time off in lieu

I know, if you continue reading the sentence I say that isn't my problem, or the question I'm asking. I just think that the full timers have been short changed because if they've worked >40 hours they should get time + 50%, not basic rate. But I think they've been told they're only allowed to apply for basic rate. Nobody gets any overtime pay under the new rules.

FBaby

It is set out in the contract which I signed that overtime is paid on 'xyz' terms and doesn't state that this can be changed.

What are those 'wyz' terms? If the new policy is that you can take time in lieu, it means that you are being paid for that time off, so it is still paid.

Clearly this is more of an interest for those who work their normal full-time hours and do a bit of extra hours rather than those who worked part-time and then worked additional hours for the money, but that's not their problem. Can you ask for them to increase your hours instead?

Are you forced to do extra hours or are you choosing to do them? If they are optional, then I can't see how they are breaking the terms of your contract. I assume it doesn't stipulate that you are guaranteed any extra hours and the fact that you have benefited from this opportunity doesn't mean that you are entitled to it.

burnoutbabe

I think they can change it but you can point out that there is now no incentive for any part timer to come in at short notice to do extra hours. Maybe raise it through the union or just get the other part timers together to write a general letter to management.
They lose a lot of flexibility by doing this (full timers I assume don't do much more than just maybe a few hours extra some evenings, rather than come in at short notice to cover for a sick person)

SuperCat007

FBaby wrote: »

What are those 'wyz' terms? If the new policy is that you can take time in lieu, it means that you are being paid for that time off, so it is still paid.

Clearly this is more of an interest for those who work their normal full-time hours and do a bit of extra hours rather than those who worked part-time and then worked additional hours for the money, but that's not their problem. Can you ask for them to increase your hours instead?

Are you forced to do extra hours or are you choosing to do them? If they are optional, then I can't see how they are breaking the terms of your contract. I assume it doesn't stipulate that you are guaranteed any extra hours and the fact that you have benefited from this opportunity doesn't mean that you are entitled to it.

That overtime is paid if you exceed your contracted working hours. Due to various other things I don't want to/can't commit to more hours per week. But there are weeks/days where I can go in on short notice for more than my contracted amount.

Obviously they can't force me to work, but the time off makes no real difference for me as the extra work is to earn extra money each month.