Contracted hours conundrum

Khaderbhai

Hi

My friend has asked me for some advice to make sense of a contract of employment they have been sent for a new role. Not sure what I am missing but I can’t seem to get my head around it either. 

So the contract clearly states the contract is for 25 hours, 9:30-2pm Mon- Fri with a 30 minute lunch break. Is this wrong? I get 9:30-2pm as 4.5 hours x5 = 22.5 hours (not 25). If you also strip out the 30 minutes lunch, is it not a 20 hour contract? 

Not sure if this relates to being entitled to paid breaks but I thought it was 6 hours before you are legally eligible for that. Can anyone help make us make sense of this? 

Thanks

Devongardener

I suspect it’s a typo, probably from an offer letter to another employee.    In my past experience in HR, a lunch break wouldn’t be offered for those hours, and as you say a break is only mandatory after 6 hours.   In that shift pattern I would have given a paid 15 minute tea break though.    Why doesn’t your friend just ask for clarification?

Khaderbhai

Thanks. They could clarify, but if they keep quiet, they will be paid for 25 hours even though they are only working 22.5. 

Appreciate theres a moral point to this but surely it would be there mistake.

Devongardener

Khaderbhai said:

Thanks. They could clarify, but if they keep quiet, they will be paid for 25 hours even though they are only working 22.5. 

Appreciate theres a moral point to this but surely it would be their mistake.

I suppose that depends on whether they are paid by the hour or a fixed monthly salary and if  there is a clocking in/out time recording.  Most employers have some sort of record of start and finish times.

Marcon

Khaderbhai said:

Thanks. They could clarify, but if they keep quiet, they will be paid for 25 hours even though they are only working 22.5. 

Appreciate theres a moral point to this but surely it would be there mistake.

Wonder how your friend will react when their employer spots the mistake and asks for overpayments to be repaid? The contract is quite clearly inaccurate, so he won't be able to argue that he couldn't have known...

Mands

Khaderbhai said:

Thanks. They could clarify, but if they keep quiet, they will be paid for 25 hours even though they are only working 22.5. 

Appreciate theres a moral point to this but surely it would be there mistake.

And in 5 years, when the employer realises their mistake and legally asks for the money back, will you give them the £10k overpayment?

Khaderbhai

Thanks. It’s an interesting one, its a fixed salary. Would the contract not be void if its inaccurate?
Mands- it would be down to my friend. 

BrassicWoman

the law recognises that human error is a real thing.... this is not the gotcha you think it is.

Marcon

Khaderbhai said:

Thanks. It’s an interesting one, its a fixed salary. Would the contract not be void if its inaccurate?
Mands- it would be down to my friend. 

Not necessarily. The issue looks like one of uncertainty - and contracts are rarely void for uncertainty where the intentions of the contracting parties are clear. 

The parties are contracting for 25 hours a week, which is likely to be confirmed if that's pro rata to the full time rate (?is it?). So the hours as they currently stand must be inaccurate and your friend recognises that.

elsien

I might be missing the bleeding obvious here, but why does he not just ask them?

Marcon

elsien said:

I might be missing the bleeding obvious here, but why does he not just ask them?

Khaderbhai said:

Thanks. They could clarify, but if they keep quiet, they will be paid for 25 hours even though they are only working 22.5. 

That's why.