Is this acceptable?

happyandcontented

A friend is employed for 30 hours a week.

They want her in from 9am to 4.30 on two days a week ( she works over 4.5 days in total) but they don't need her for a period of 1.5 hours in the middle of the day, but they do need her to work till 4.30. Effectively, she is clocking on and off during a shift and just hanging around doing nothing. Is it ok for an employer to do this?

Tiddlywinks

What does her contract say? How long has she worked there. Is this a recent requirement and what has triggered it?

'Split shifts' are very common in the hospitality sector in particular and designed to deal with peak times whilst not paying staff when they aren't needed.

How your friend proceeds will depend on whether she has a long standing contract with specified hours or whether she is new to the job.

happyandcontented

She has worked there for 15 years, and it has never been normal practice. 30 hours are not specifically set down in contract. Now, due to short staffing it has sort of just crept in. My friend has got fed up with it but been told it is unfortunate but she will have to get on and just accept it.

rockey100

Not ideal but earns readies I suppose!

agrinnall

Rather than "hang around doing nothing" why doesn't she find something to do for 90 minutes? Presumably she is not required to remain on the premises, is she near other facilites, e.g. a swimming pool so she could go for a swim?

theoretica

Unpaid lunchbreaks are not uncommon, though I agree that 90 minutes could be irritatingly long.

McKneff

A swim , a kip, learn something from a trip to the library. Etc etc.

[Deleted User]

What attitude to take with someone so loyal and long standing, I've known people negotiate at 12 months shorter lunch break to go home earlier and the likes. Did they attempt to reason the change? Regardless of what the world is becoming sometimes it can help to understand the why's.

I once went for a telesales job with a 2 hour break and while it made for a later finishing day I did kind of think it a blessing if there was a need to go for an interview or a doctors appointment, then there would have been the time without stress perhaps - just trying to look at it in another way in the power isn't all on one side for someone of such service. (Hopefully.)

I know in the last 3 decades Mum worked she just use to be able to pop home at lunch even with changing job roughly every 8-10 years always use to do this, no stopping her, always managed to get work close and I'm sure the family dogs were grateful to be let out and walked during the course of a working day.

getmore4less

happyandcontented wrote: »

A friend is employed for 30 hours a week.

They want her in from 9am to 4.30 on two days a week ( she works over 4.5 days in total) but they don't need her for a period of 1.5 hours in the middle of the day, but they do need her to work till 4.30. Effectively, she is clocking on and off during a shift and just hanging around doing nothing. Is it ok for an employer to do this?

happyandcontented wrote: »

She has worked there for 15 years, and it has never been normal practice. 30 hours are not specifically set down in contract. Now, due to short staffing it has sort of just crept in. My friend has got fed up with it but been told it is unfortunate but she will have to get on and just accept it.

How has short staffing resulted in less hours?

If clocking off for the 1.5 hours leave the premises.

is she still getting the 30hr

happyandcontented

Where she works is in a town but not close enough to amenties that she could get there and back in 1.5 hours. She lives a bus ride away so going home wouldn't be feasible either.

The short staffing issue impacts the break because there is no other body to cover the period from 3pm to 4.30 so she can't just pull her hours forward. If there was the employer would easily find her work to do for the break, it isn't that she couldn't be employed during that period just that if she was the later slot would have no cover and she would have used all her hours so they won't let her do that.

TELLIT01

In her situation I would make damn sure that I do go off site for that time to be certain that they can't try to get her working during the unpaid period.