Surely an employer can't randomly reduce hours when you have a contract?

Jon_01

Okay, so my wife has a 15 hour contract + overtime. She works from home.

She types highly complex letters/email from a number of consultants.

She completes an Excel sheet each month with her hours so that overtime can be paid.

On one week last month, because a number of consultants were on holiday, she only had 11.5 hours of work.

She checked her Sept sheet last night and found that her manager has entered -3.5 hours for that week and had reduced her pay for that week by three and half hours!

This surely can't be right?  If her contract says 15 hours that's how much they have to pay her... don't they?

She hesitates to bring this up with her manager as she had a problem with them a couple of months back that went wrong very quickly and manager said that they regarded the issue as a 'personal threat'!!!!   

This was an email just querying the timescale of work due to her hours being reduced from 25 to the 15. Nothing contentions or threatening, just a question on the process now she has less hours to complete the work.

This person isn't really a manager, just a part trained accountant because the two guys that own the company can't be bothered to employ a real manager.

oldernonethewiser

Does her contract stipulate that she will be paid for 15 hours per week as a minimum no matter what?

Undervalued

Jon_01 said:

Okay, so my wife has a 15 hour contract + overtime. She works from home.

She types highly complex letters/email from a number of consultants.

She completes an Excel sheet each month with her hours so that overtime can be paid.

On one week last month, because a number of consultants were on holiday, she only had 11.5 hours of work.

She checked her Sept sheet last night and found that her manager has entered -3.5 hours for that week and had reduced her pay for that week by three and half hours!

This surely can't be right?  If her contract says 15 hours that's how much they have to pay her... don't they?

She hesitates to bring this up with her manager as she had a problem with them a couple of months back that went wrong very quickly and manager said that they regarded the issue as a 'personal threat'!!!!   

This was an email just querying the timescale of work due to her hours being reduced from 25 to the 15. Nothing contentions or threatening, just a question on the process now she has less hours to complete the work.

This person isn't really a manager, just a part trained accountant because the two guys that own the company can't be bothered to employ a real manager.

Does it guarantee at least 15 hours or does it have phrases like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of"?

They may try to argue that this is more than made up by the wekks when she works extra hours?

How long as she been employed? If less than two years they can easily change her contract. Even with longer service, contracts are not set in stone until the end of time and can normally be varied if there is agood business reason r as an alternative to redundancy if there is no longer a need for as many hours.

Jon_01

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

Undervalued

Jon_01 said:

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

That doesn't answer the question. What does her original contract say? Did it offer 25 hours fixed or was it normally / usually / generally etc.

Even if it doesn't, if she has accepted the change by not "working under protest" she may be deemed to have legally accepted the change. She would need proper legal advice fro a solicitor who can study the wording of the original contract and any letters regarding changes.

Jon_01

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

That doesn't answer the question. What does her original contract say? Did it offer 25 hours fixed or was it normally / usually / generally etc.

Even if it doesn't, if she has accepted the change by not "working under protest" she may be deemed to have legally accepted the change. She would need proper legal advice fro a solicitor who can study the wording of the original contract and any letters regarding changes.

Sorry, misread.  The original contract says 25 hours. Nothing else.

Undervalued

Jon_01 said:

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

That doesn't answer the question. What does her original contract say? Did it offer 25 hours fixed or was it normally / usually / generally etc.

Even if it doesn't, if she has accepted the change by not "working under protest" she may be deemed to have legally accepted the change. She would need proper legal advice fro a solicitor who can study the wording of the original contract and any letters regarding changes.

Sorry, misread.  The original contract says 25 hours. Nothing else.

Well in that case she MAY have a case. She needs to take proper advice about if / how to progress this.

It is unfortunate that several months have elapsed without raising the issue as they may try to argue that has indicated her acceptance of the revised hours.

General_Grant

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

That doesn't answer the question. What does her original contract say? Did it offer 25 hours fixed or was it normally / usually / generally etc.

Even if it doesn't, if she has accepted the change by not "working under protest" she may be deemed to have legally accepted the change. She would need proper legal advice fro a solicitor who can study the wording of the original contract and any letters regarding changes.

Sorry, misread.  The original contract says 25 hours. Nothing else.

Well in that case she MAY have a case. She needs to take proper advice about if / how to progress this.

It is unfortunate that several months have elapsed without raising the issue as they may try to argue that has indicated her acceptance of the revised hours.

I don't think the argument is about the reduction to 15 hours from 25 hours but the reduction to paying only 11.5 hours simply because there wasn't work to be done for 3.5 hours in a particular week and that this was without notice.

thara1996

Please talk to a solicitor. Good luck. 

Marcon

General_Grant said:

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

Undervalued said:

Jon_01 said:

To answer both the above, she had a letter from her manager a couple of months back stating that 'Your hours have been reduced from 25 per week to 15'.  There is nothing like "normally" or "usually" or "an average of".

She has been employed by them for a little over 6 years.

I'd also add that the 3 other employees who work in the office were sitting around with nothing to do that week and they all got full pay...

That doesn't answer the question. What does her original contract say? Did it offer 25 hours fixed or was it normally / usually / generally etc.

Even if it doesn't, if she has accepted the change by not "working under protest" she may be deemed to have legally accepted the change. She would need proper legal advice fro a solicitor who can study the wording of the original contract and any letters regarding changes.

Sorry, misread.  The original contract says 25 hours. Nothing else.

Well in that case she MAY have a case. She needs to take proper advice about if / how to progress this.

It is unfortunate that several months have elapsed without raising the issue as they may try to argue that has indicated her acceptance of the revised hours.

I don't think the argument is about the reduction to 15 hours from 25 hours but the reduction to paying only 11.5 hours simply because there wasn't work to be done for 3.5 hours in a particular week and that this was without notice.

Have you read the rest of the contract in full to see if there is anything about giving the employer the ability to reduce her hours in weeks when etc etc?

Grumpy_chap

General_Grant said:

I don't think the argument is about the reduction to 15 hours from 25 hours but the reduction to paying only 11.5 hours simply because there wasn't work to be done for 3.5 hours in a particular week and that this was without notice.

Yes, I noted that there seemed to be two factors in consideration and the reduction form 25 hours to 15 hours seems to be the lesser concern.  I have to assume that this change was all agreed and accepted.

With regard to the timesheet hours, this might actually be down to the OP and how they submitted their timesheet.
The comment is made that people that work in the office were paid 15 hours even though they had no work to do.  I suspect that these individuals filled in the timesheets to say 5 hours per day in the office for three days = 15 hours.
It seems as though the OP submitted a timesheet that reflected actual time spent working, not time available to work and "online" for work. 
If the payroll team saw a timesheet submitted by the individual saying "11.5 hours", the Manager had little option other than to only pay for the time worked instead of the standard 15 hours.
Payroll will not have been aware there was not much work available and will not be able to tell the difference from the timesheet for those 3.5 hours not worked whether that was not worked because there was no work or not worked because the individual was not available to work.  In the latter, the timesheet should possibly have had "annual leave" or such entered, but the Payroll (and then the Manager) needed to pay based upon the timesheet submitted by the individual.

Maybe if a similar thing arises in future, the OP should put 15 hours in the timesheet as the OP is there "online" in front of the computer to work regardless of whether there was beneficial work to perform.  That is, after all, what the office based employees seem to have done "in the office, so working" (regardless of whether the work was twiddling thumbs).