are my employers behaving illegally

worried123

I have worked for the same company for very many years. I am classed as a casual worker although they deduct tax and nat ins and i have my pension with them. I work full time for them.

I am 63, have some health problems and they are aware of this. Years ago we were `offered work` and we decided what days we would work on an assignment etc but more recently they just put work down in our electronic diaries and we have to adhere to this and work those days.

When we are busy, they will, and have done at the moment, put 9 days of work in a row into my diary and expect me to adhere to that. This latest stint means that I will have worked 72 hours in a row. They also know that I am not happy with this as it could make me ill and then i dont get paid when i am ill. We literally get paid for what we do. We do get holiday pay but no sick pay.

Whilst i feel they are behaving irresponsibly and treating us as commodities rather than human beings, are they actually behaving illegally??

You worry at not doing the work because when times are a bit slack, you would worry that because you have complained at working too many days in a row they will not give you sufficient work when things are a bit slack.....you feel you may be treated with even less thought when things are a bit slack.

Is it also legal to be booked in for work......could be weeks in advance and then be told the morning of the work that they do not need you. (i do not work on a zero hour contract by the way).

Are they behaving legally does anybody know.

many thanks

Comms69

You’re entirled to SSP

You didn’t work 72 hours straight

Not illegal

worried123

I worked a 56 hour week and then had no time off and expected to work another 16 hours......9 days in a row before being given a day off.....

i thought that being made to work beyond a 48 hour week was illegal and checking whether anybody here knows whether they are behaving legally.

i am fully aware that i would get ssp but who wants that..not worth claiming...that isnt the issue....to be expected to work 9 full days in a row could make somebody ill and then they would not be well enough to earn a living ssp is not a solution for that.

Les79

worried123 wrote: »

I am 63, have some health problems and they are aware of this. Years ago we were `offered work` and we decided what days we would work on an assignment etc but more recently they just put work down in our electronic diaries and we have to adhere to this and work those days.

Was that a contractual term, or something that was agreed at the time?


If it has been going on consistently for a long period of time, you MAY have some grounds to complain but it is out of my remit and you'd be best speaking to ACAS.

When we are busy, they will, and have done at the moment, put 9 days of work in a row into my diary and expect me to adhere to that.

I do not believe that this is a problem depending on how it falls.


For example, two consecutive working weeks (with 2x days off) could be (I=in, X = off)


XXIIIII IIIIIXX = 10 days in a row.


As long as they leave enough time between shifts etc it is very likely legal.

They also know that I am not happy with this as it could make me ill and then i dont get paid when i am ill. We literally get paid for what we do. We do get holiday pay but no sick pay.

Nobody cares about what "could" do what. You could get hit by a car tomorrow and die. You could win 1m on the lottery and retire to the south of France.


The only thing which matters is what HAS happened. Are you ill, or aren't you?

could be weeks in advance and then be told the morning of the work that they do not need you. (i do not work on a zero hour contract by the way).

But you are a "casual worker" according to your bit at the top...


A google search comes up with this match first:


[quote=www.thepeopleindairy.org.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=118669]Casual employees are employees who do not have regular or systematic hours of work or an expectation of continuing work. A typical casual employee is employed on a daily basis when the need arises[/quote]


Sounds like a somewhat apt description of what you talk about here to be fair...


Again, there may be some possible claim by you that having worked regular full time hours for so long entitles you to full time employment status, but that is totally outside of my remit and I could even be completely wrong.

LilElvis

worried123 wrote: »

I worked a 56 hour week and then had no time off and expected to work another 16 hours......9 days in a row before being given a day off.....

i thought that being made to work beyond a 48 hour week was illegal and checking whether anybody here knows whether they are behaving legally.

i am fully aware that i would get ssp but who wants that..not worth claiming...that isnt the issue....to be expected to work 9 full days in a row could make somebody ill and then they would not be well enough to earn a living ssp is not a solution for that.

It's sounds unlikely that your employer is doing anything wrong as the "48 hour week" is averaged over a 17 week period, so would likely include weeks when you are working less hours too. In any case it is common for an employer to include opting out of the Working Time Directive in an employment contract, therefore removing the average 48 hour/week cap.

lincroft1710

worried123 wrote: »

Whilst i feel they are behaving irresponsibly and treating us as commodities rather than human beings, are they actually behaving illegally??

You are a commodity!

You are a human resource.

You give your time, labour, ideas, intelligence, skills, expertise to your employer. In return, they give you money.

General_Grant

LilElvis wrote: »

It's sounds unlikely that your employer is doing anything wrong as the "48 hour week" is averaged over a 17 week period, so would likely include weeks when you are working less hours too. In any case it is common for an employer to include opting out of the Working Time Directive in an employment contract, therefore removing the average 48 hour/week cap.

I am afraid you will find that simply including a statement in written particulars of employment which say the employee contracts out of the 48-hour cap is not lawful. It cannot be made a condition of employment: an employee should opt out freely.

Exodi

worried123 wrote: »

I worked a 56 hour week and then had no time off and expected to work another 16 hours......9 days in a row before being given a day off.....

i thought that being made to work beyond a 48 hour week was illegal and checking whether anybody here knows whether they are behaving legally.

i am fully aware that i would get ssp but who wants that..not worth claiming...that isnt the issue....to be expected to work 9 full days in a row could make somebody ill and then they would not be well enough to earn a living ssp is not a solution for that.

Do not get a salaried job! Not only are you expected to work 9 full days in a row (spoiler alert, it doesn't make you ill), but you're also not paid extra for it.

UserName123

Hi poster. Unless you’ve signed the form to day you are happy working more than 48 hours a week (and this can also be reversed) than yes your company is acting illegally. However it’s averaged over 17 weeks and it’s probably like you are within the law.

It’s a bit of a tough one as your hours are casual and you don’t want to work the hours. Can you negotiate with the company?

They aren’t doing anything illegal and it sounds like a lot of casual bar jobs I’ve done.

getmore4less

Working time regulations allow for a period of 24 consecutive days.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/11/made
1

1.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an adult worker is entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven-day period during which he works for his employer.

(2) If his employer so determines, an adult worker shall be entitled to either—

(a)two uninterrupted rest periods each of not less than 24 hours in each 14-day period during which he works for his employer; or

(b)one uninterrupted rest period of not less than 48 hours in each such 14-day period,

in place of the entitlement provided for in paragraph (1).

1x24hr a week OR 2x24hr over 14 days

2 off 12 on : 12 on 2 off

compensatory break rules mean it is fairly easy to construct some horrendous combinations that comply with the law.

If you get sick claim SSP this comes out of the employers pocket.


How do they work out holiday and holiday pay?

There is scope her to use the 12 week averaging and get paid more for holidays.

Booking some holiday may reduce the hours in the preceding weeks.

Takmon

worried123 wrote: »

When we are busy, they will, and have done at the moment, put 9 days of work in a row into my diary and expect me to adhere to that. This latest stint means that I will have worked 72 hours in a row. They also know that I am not happy with this as it could make me ill and then i dont get paid when i am ill. We literally get paid for what we do. We do get holiday pay but no sick pay.

Well obviously your not working 72 hours in a row as other posters have pointed out; your working 8 hours a day over 9 days.

But i really don't see the problem? I work Mon-Fri every week and do more than 8 hours each day. I have when busy also worked Saturday and Sunday. That's 12 days in a row right away and it's not exactly a problem.