Underpaid at work (for years!) where do I stand?

Kim_kim

yffas0810 wrote: »

Hi.
I’m hoping someone can help me. I’ve been unable to sleep tonight from worrying/overthinking about this.
Believe it or not, I’ve just discovered today that I believe I’ve been underpaid at work for the last 7 years!

I worked full time on a salary of 20k per year until 2010 when I left to have my son. I returned to work in 2011 part time (16 hours over 3 days) and believed my pay has been adjusted accordingly and correctly.

My monthly pay since I returned to work has been £622.00 a month.

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I am still hoping that I am, but this is not the right amount of pay pro rata for £20k a year salary is it?

I feel a total idiot but I have worked there for 12 years and just trusted implicitly those I work with and it never even occurred to me to check or query it. It’s only come to light now as I was thinking of asking my boss for a pay rise 😳

I’m not sure if I am actually right so would really appreciate a second opinion. And if I am, do I have a leg to stand on asking for back pay and for my pay to be updated to what is correct? I

I have absolutely no payslips from 2010 or earlier and I’m unsure whether I could get copies ? Also I’ve thoohht about contacting my bank to see if I could get statement but again, I’m unsure whether they would keep them this Long.

The main problem is that the firm I work at had changed hands and unluckily for me, none of the original staff (including my original boss) are there anymore.
It’s a very small firm and I didn’t have formal contract.

If anyone can offer any assistance, it’d be much appreciated.

Thank you.

You need to be sure of the actual hours you were paid for (no assumptions about lunch) & be sure of the hours you are paid now.

20/37.5x16=£711.11

I am working on gross, make sure you only work in gross.

nicechap

yffas0810 wrote: »

LilElvis.
I used to work 9-5.30pm with an hour for lunch. I’m presuming that’s like a bog standard working week. And presuming I got paid for my hourly lunch.

I’m starting to think I’m wrong now as I’ve been on these online calculator that works out your hourly pay from your yearly salary and £20,000 dividend by 52 weeks is £384 a week, divided by 5 days is £76 ish a day, divided by 8 hours gives an hourly rate of £9.61 x 16 hours is £153.00 per week. So that works out at £615.00 a month so now I’m starting to think I’ve been overpaid?
Argh .....I don’t know what is the correct calculation.

You need to be more exact with your sums and information.

If you were on £76 a day and were paid for breaks then divide by 8.5 hours to get hourly rate of £8.94.

If you were on £76 a day and were NOT paid for breaks then divide by 7.5 hours to get £10.13 an hour.

Similarly, there are 366 1/4 days in a year, so fractionally more than 52 weeks. Also, some pay periods have 4 weeks per month and some 5 weeks, or does your pay get calculated annually and divided by 12?

Did you only get an hour for lunch, no mid morning or late afternoon tea break? And now on 16 hours, do you get a tea break? If so, is it paid or unpaid?

Have you also had no pay rises in 7 years?

Re-reading your original post, you have no evidence of what you were originally paid, or how it was calculated. So I suspect you will struggle to evidence any claim. So I would start with sitting down with whoever does your pay and ask them to take you through it and how its calculated.

yffas0810

Thank you Kim Kim

I will find out about getting paid for lunch.
Just wondering why some websites seem to divide gross annual pay by the amount of weeks in a year rather than the number of hours worked as you have (and as I have also) ?

I’m presuming my boss has gone off the former calculation hence arriving at £622.00 a month.

I also calculated it at salary divided by number of hours which has got me confused as to what is right.

t0rt0ise

No, your full time hours sound like 37.5 plus unpaid lunch break.

The sum I did was...
20,000 divided by 37.5 to get one hour per year.
Multiply by 14 and divide by 12 for per month gets to the 622 you get paid.

Just check with them. No need for letters before action and charging in like some seem to suggest.

yffas0810

Nicechap thank you for your help.
No, no pay rises for 11 years !! ��
And only one hour break for lunch when I was full time. I always presumed it was unpaid myself but I guess when I’ve tried to see how they’ve arrived at my part time salary, it seems as though they’ve considered I was working a full 40 hours.

I think on that basis, it seems that I am in (supposedly) on 20k pro rata (if you divide it by 52 weeks a year, and calculate it as I have above) but i don’t know if the 20k apportionment has been correctly according to the other possible calculations.

I will find out about the lunch break issue and take it from there.

If my boss is under the impression I’m on 20k pro rata but has been paying me using an incorrect calculation hopefully that means I don’t require any physical evidence Of my full time salary although I am going to speak to our accounts dept about possibly getting old payslips regardless

Thank you again.

yffas0810

Tortoise. Thank you!
I totally see what you mean.
So yes it looks like they’ve been paying me for 14 hours ! All this time.
Flippin eck.

nicechap

yffas0810 wrote: »

Nicechap thank you for your help.
No, no pay rises for 11 years !! ��
And only one hour break for lunch when I was full time. I always presumed it was unpaid myself but I guess when I’ve tried to see how they’ve arrived at my part time salary, it seems as though they’ve considered I was working a full 40 hours.

I think on that basis, it seems that I am in (supposedly) on 20k pro rata (if you divide it by 52 weeks a year, and calculate it as I have above) but i don’t know if the 20k apportionment has been correctly according to the other possible calculations.

I will find out about the lunch break issue and take it from there.

If my boss is under the impression I’m on 20k pro rata but has been paying me using an incorrect calculation hopefully that means I don’t require any physical evidence Of my full time salary although I am going to speak to our accounts dept about possibly getting old payslips regardless

Thank you again.

No worries. But 9 - 5.30 is 42.5 hours. An hour unpaid lunch would be 37.5 hours. I have heard of places with part paid and part unpaid breaks to enable flexibility against demand. So is your no break 16 hours pro rata against 42.5, 40 or 37.5 hours if you see what I mean.

As tortoise states, no need for letter before claim at this stage, that's for if you can't resolve it amicably and the amount owed (if any) is worth fighting for - which after 7 years it might be.

yffas0810

Nicechap.
I’m pretty sure I don’t get paid for breaks. I don’t have breaks now so I can work school hours but once upon a time I did have half an hour break and would finish half an hour later and I recall it wasn’t paid.
It’s difficult as I’ve worked there for so long and everything was on an informal basis but I have definitely work 16 hours as I have to for working tax credit purposes. The payroll person and my old boss have since retired so I’ve no idea what, if any payroll records may reveal.
I’m not sure what my boss will say to all this.
She is also trying to make me redundant at the moment (a whole other can of worms!)

theoretica

£20,000 a year is £1666.67 a month. If £622 is the right pay for 16 hours a week, then you would need to work 42.9 hours a week to earn £1666.67.



9 to 5:30 daily is 42.5 hours, which is the 37.5 working hours + the 5 hour lunch breaks. So if this is correct you should also be taking nearly 2 hours of lunch breaks a week. Which is another way of getting to the fact it looks like you are being paid for 14 hours work!

yffas0810

Theoretica, I completely agree
And now I’ve searched my memory, I think I know how this has happened.
When I first returned to work after mat leave I was working two days a week 9-5.30pm but having half an hour lunch in order to leave at 5pm (and still work 16
hours) it seems (if I’m right) that accounts have paid me as though I had an hour for lunch and left at 5.30pm, thus only working 14 hours?
I soon starting working 16 hours spread over 3 shorter days as detailed above.
That’s the only logical reason I can think of for how it’s occurred.
I don’t know if it’ll be good enough for me to say that I just didn’t realise.
I know my boss will be totally reluctant to assist in any way.