Employment contract.

Wisemensay1010

Just been offered a new job. Under hours of work it says the following. 

Your hours of work are those required to carry out your duties to the satisfaction of the Company and as necessitated by the needs of the business and shall not normally be less than 40 hours a week.

My core working hours have been agreed,obviously some flexibility expected.I pushed employer on this and he said very rarely happens, if it does its give and take. Also any weekend work is paid extra. What concerns me, I will end up doing lots of extra hrs for no extra pay. In the job offer, it says a average working week of 40 hrs. 
I would ask again, but feel I have pushed employer on a numbers of things, and really want to take the role.

General_Grant

Wisemensay1010 said:

Just been offered a new job. Under hours of work it says the following. 

Your hours of work are those required to carry out your duties to the satisfaction of the Company and as necessitated by the needs of the business and shall not normally be less than 40 hours a week.

My core working hours have been agreed,obviously some flexibility expected.I pushed employer on this and he said very rarely happens, if it does its give and take. Also any weekend work is paid extra. What concerns me, I will end up doing lots of extra hrs for no extra pay. In the job offer, it says a average working week of 40 hrs. 
I would ask again, but feel I have pushed employer on a numbers of things, and really want to take the role.

If the non-italicised emboldened text is from your written contract then note "normally".  Take that with the reference to "average" in the offer and the mention of "give and take", it seems you would, on average, be required to work 40 hours a week.

As long as your pay for any pay period does not fall below national living wage, then that is lawful.

Did the weekly "core working hours" you agreed amount to 40?

Wisemensay1010

It amounted to 45hrs, obviously taking 1hr lunch off a day,will be 40hrs.The core hours are not in the contract. The salary paid significantly more than nmw. I could work 60hrs a week for example and still be above nmw. Is this fairly normal, to be put under hrs of work?
I have no worries of working 40hrs or even a little more for the salary. I just don't want to be doing 45+ working hrs for no extra.
My gut instinct is it won't happen, the employer seems fair. He understands one of the main reasons I'm taking the role is for a better work/life balance and the fact I'm a single parent. That I'm taking a significant pay cut to get this balance. 
It's a family business, the employer himself, works crazy long hrs, I just a little worried if he expects the same, for no extra pay. 

Own_Worst_Enermy

I used to work for a small family business where the Director would work 7 days a week, every week.
(I couldn't believe it but yes 7 days a week completely happened)

It took a couple of weeks after I started but they did grow to respect I wouldn't want to do the same.  It never became an argument/battle. 

Couple of occasions I covered what was the 6th/ 7th day of the business week which was definitely firmly treated as overtime.

General_Grant

Wisemensay1010 said:

It amounted to 45hrs, obviously taking 1hr lunch off a day,will be 40hrs.The core hours are not in the contract. The salary paid significantly more than nmw. I could work 60hrs a week for example and still be above nmw. Is this fairly normal, to be put under hrs of work?
I have no worries of working 40hrs or even a little more for the salary. I just don't want to be doing 45+ working hrs for no extra.
My gut instinct is it won't happen, the employer seems fair. He understands one of the main reasons I'm taking the role is for a better work/life balance and the fact I'm a single parent. That I'm taking a significant pay cut to get this balance. 
It's a family business, the employer himself, works crazy long hrs, I just a little worried if he expects the same, for no extra pay. 

I would say that the "no less than" phrase is not so usual but it wouldn't worry me.

Obviously if you were being expected to regularly work more than 48 hours on average (whether or not paid extra for the extra hours) then that situation would be covered by WT Regs and you obviously wouldn't be signing an opt-out.

Family businesses can be more flexible and at least the employer is easily accessible to agree the time off in lieu.

Jillanddy

General_Grant said:

Wisemensay1010 said:

It amounted to 45hrs, obviously taking 1hr lunch off a day,will be 40hrs.The core hours are not in the contract. The salary paid significantly more than nmw. I could work 60hrs a week for example and still be above nmw. Is this fairly normal, to be put under hrs of work?
I have no worries of working 40hrs or even a little more for the salary. I just don't want to be doing 45+ working hrs for no extra.
My gut instinct is it won't happen, the employer seems fair. He understands one of the main reasons I'm taking the role is for a better work/life balance and the fact I'm a single parent. That I'm taking a significant pay cut to get this balance. 
It's a family business, the employer himself, works crazy long hrs, I just a little worried if he expects the same, for no extra pay. 

I would say that the "no less than" phrase is not so usual but it wouldn't worry me.

In my line of work (public sector) it would be unheard of except at very, very senior level (where it is actually common). But I have many friends and colleagues in the private sector where this is a common contractual term. For some it is as it says - an expectation that some additional hours may be required for which no additional compensation, whether pay or time off, will be given. Unfortunately it also covers a multitude of sins in other workplaces where it allows the employer to demand excessive hours without compensation, and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it. Unfortunately there is no legal arbiter to say what is reasonable and what isn't, provided it doesn't breach the National Living Wage / Minimum Wage.

I also wouldn't ever depend on an employer "seeming fair". If they are actually fair, then they can be specific in their contract. Fair would be to say that hours of work are normally 40 per week, but at busy times some additional hours may be required for which time off in lieu will be given at a later date. If the owner of a business who draws down the profit / benefit wants to work crazy hours, then that is their business. Employees should be treated as exactly that - people whose time is literally their money!

Wisemensay1010

So peoples opinion? Email the office manager, asking the simple question, if excees hrs are worked, will that time be paid back in lieu. Stating I accept the need for flexibility, but not wanting to work excessive hrs without compensation. 

Jillanddy

Wisemensay1010 said:

So peoples opinion? Email the office manager, asking the simple question, if excees hrs are worked, will that time be paid back in lieu. Stating I accept the need for flexibility, but not wanting to work excessive hrs without compensation. 

That would be my take on it - and perhaps point out that flexibility works both ways. As a single parent it might be helpful for you to be able to have some hours "in the bank" for occasional use when you need them, just as it is convenient for them to have you do some extra hours when they need you. 

Sandtree

Wisemensay1010 said:

So peoples opinion? Email the office manager, asking the simple question, if excees hrs are worked, will that time be paid back in lieu. Stating I accept the need for flexibility, but not wanting to work excessive hrs without compensation. 

Is your pay salaried or per hour?

How senior is the role? Does the contract mention overtime other than weekend working?

In my first salaried jobs you were expected to do your 40 hours but if your shift ended at 5pm and you were mid conversation with a customer you obviously cannot cut them off but have to finish what you were doing including post call wrapup. If this was 30 minutes well thats just life really, if it was 2 hours then a conversation with your manager and a quick check of the call logs verifying then time in lieu was common.

Now more senior I know I am expected to get a job done, its up to me to a large degree how and when. Sometimes I have a quiet week and it may be 35 hours, more often its busy and its 45-50 hours (have signed out of regs) and occasionally its insane and its 100+ hours. Whatever the hours worked the salary is the same, though it does tend to reflect in the bonus and annual payrise. 

Have worked for many companies in my career and they've all been similar and so I just have to consider if I am happy with the salary knowing the reality is that 40 hours is unlikely to be sufficient a lot of the time. 

Wisemensay1010

It's salaried, management role. It's probably going to be a case of go and take the risk. My current role, is unsociable hours. Hence the reason for leaving, but I'm currently paid for any extra worked. I've been there 18 years, probably just a overall fear of something new. Looking at worse case all the time.Having spoken to someone in the same job/industry, its not in uncommon.He said it was a case of going for it and hoping you get a decent employer, who doesn't take advantage. 

Thrugelmir

Wisemensay1010 said:

Your hours of work are those required to carry out your duties to the satisfaction of the Company and as necessitated by the needs of the business and shall not normally be less than 40 hours a week.

If your finishing time is 5 o'clock. Be prepared to stay a few extra minutes and finish the task if so required. Not going to be the type of working enviroment where people are washing their coffee cups up at 4.45. Coats on at 4.55 and out the door dead on 5. .