Refusal to pay overtime that has been worked, unlawful, or just sharp practice?

Hotglove

I would like advice and the best way I can put it is with the following scenario,

"An employment contract states that "overtime is subject to a maximum of 60 hrs pa"
An employee is offered 60 hours at double time, which he accepts and works.
When he checks his payslip he finds that he has only been paid for 30 hours double time and no other overtime payment.
He raises the issue with his manager and is told, "There is an annual allowance of 30hrs double time and 30hrs time and a half, which is deemed to be a fair way of proceeding, you have exceeded your double time allowance and have not used your time and a half allowance, so only qualify for 30hrs total overtime pay"

The employee asks to see written evidence of this ratio system being introduced and is told that there is no record of when the ratio was introduced, nor of who authorised it, but, if he had asked payroll how the 60 hour overtime limit was implemented, they would have explained it to him.

Now, this situation seems to me to be unjust unfair and unreasonable, but what is his legal standing?
A single phone call to payroll before working the overtime would have prevented the situation from occurring, but how far does "due diligence" go when establishing one's rights under an employment contract?

nicechap

Hotglove wrote: »

I would like advice and the best way I can put it is with the following scenario,

"An employment contract states that "overtime is subject to a maximum of 60 hrs pa"
An employee is offered 60 hours at double time, which he accepts and works.
When he checks his payslip he finds that he has only been paid for 30 hours double time and no other overtime payment.
He raises the issue with his manager and is told, "There is an annual allowance of 30hrs double time and 30hrs time and a half, which is deemed to be a fair way of proceeding, you have exceeded your double time allowance and have not used your time and a half allowance, so only qualify for 30hrs total overtime pay"

The employee asks to see written evidence of this ratio system being introduced and is told that there is no record of when the ratio was introduced, nor of who authorised it, but, if he had asked payroll how the 60 hour overtime limit was implemented, they would have explained it to him.

Now, this situation seems to me to be unjust unfair and unreasonable, but what is his legal standing?
A single phone call to payroll before working the overtime would have prevented the situation from occurring, but how far does "due diligence" go when establishing one's rights under an employment contract?

Its probably neither unlawful or sharp practice as is appears a very confusing set up.

Are you really limited to 60 hours overtime per annum?

How was the 60 hours overtime at double time offered and accepted? i.e. what documentary evidence is there?

Can you prove that the management view of 30 hours double and 30 hours time and half isn't custom & practice and the quote from your contract is simply an out of date error?

Did you get time and half for the other 30 hours?

Did your total pay for the period equal less than NMW?

Hotglove

Sorry if it was not clear that this is a hypothetical question, but does mirror actual events.
To qualify as custom and practice it would need to be generally known, but management informed no-one of the ratio being adopted.
Company allowed the 30 hours OT to be worked, but refused any payment for it. Custom and practice also has to be “reasonable” is it reasonable to allow work to be done, then refuse payment?
Is there a specific legal term for adding conditions to a contract (with no notification) in order to “get something for nothing”
All comments are helpful to get a clearer picture and see from other sides.
Thanks again.

nicechap

As this is a hypothetical question, I'm out.

tacpot12

I always operated on the basis of "If you didn't tell me about a rule, I'm not bound by it".

I would raise a grievance, and take this as far as possible to get paid. It might worsen your relationship with your employer, but in my experience nothing does more to worsen a relationship than an employee showing that they are happy to be walked over.

Hotglove

A grievance has been raised and is pending appeal, that is why I am sounding a bit vague, I don't wish to jeopardise any legal action by discussing in detail, just looking for a sounding board.
When something relies on facts, "did he do it, or not?" it is much easier than when it is subjective, "Was this a fair and reasonable action?"