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

Jon_01

Grumpy_chap said:

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).

Grumpy_chap said:

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).

Thank you for all of that.

The issues is, there is no payroll dept, it's the same manager that gathers the time slips and works out the pay.

And they can't be talked to, because they believe that can do no wrong and can do whatever they like. 

Manager also goes through the time sheets and compares the numbers with work done as logged on the IT system they use. (as manager has very little to do).  So my wife can't just put numbers to total 15 hours on the sheet as that creates an even bigger problem, it's happened in the past.

We believe the problem is as simple as, the manager doesn't like my wife working from home (even though there's no space in the office) and is being as difficult as possible in the hope that she'll quit!   Which is something that manager has done twice in the past!

oldernonethewiser

The issue is what is in the contract.

If she was not given any work to do in a week would she still be entitled to any payment?

Jon_01

oldernonethewiser said:

The issue is what is in the contract.

If she was not given any work to do in a week would she still be entitled to any payment?

The contract she signed 6+ years ago states 25 hours. 

She had a letter 2 to 3 months back stating that her hours were being reduced to 15 hours. 

She challenged that as she has an agreement with the consultants that the letters/email/documents have to be completed within 48 hours and was told that it would be 15 hours + any overtime that was needed.

Since then, her manager has nitpicked every time sheet she submitted, and on one, even said that they didn't believe the hours submitted and changed the overtime down to what they thought it 'should be'! (without providing any evidence to support their view).

As to the week with less than 15 hours of work, the other three staff sat in the office and did nothing and were paid in full. One told my wife she spent the week looking through fashion websites looking for new clothes!

sheramber

if they were in the office they were available to do any work that arose.

I had times when I had no work and my employer paid me but I was not able to go home or go shopping or go out for a coffee.  I was at my desk as usual.

What was you wife doing when she had that time with no work?

Jon_01

sheramber said:

if they were in the office they were available to do any work that arose.

I had times when I had no work and my employer paid me but I was not able to go home or go shopping or go out for a coffee.  I was at my desk as usual.

What was you wife doing when she had that time with no work?

In this situation, the fact that the others were sitting in the office is irrelevant. All the people that generate the work had taken the same week off.  There was no possibility of any work arising at all.

My wife spent the first two days doing the work from the previous week, she ran out half way through day 3. She stayed in her office for a while tidying, waiting for the pc to 'ping' with a new job. When nothing arrived, she emailed in and was told that no one was in. (because no one had bothered to tell her beforehand.)

But what you're saying then affectedly means that if someone works from home, no matter what their contacts says, they're really on zero hours if that suites the company better?

easy

Assuming that your wife is actually an employee (employer takes care of PAYE, National Insurance and pension contributions)  rather than self employed, then her employer is well out of order here,  they can't just reduce her contracted hours from 25 to 15 without notice or consultation,  and they certainly can't then just decide not to pay her 15 hours because they didn't have enough work !

Seriously,  In your shoes I'd give the ACAS help line a call in the first instance  https://www.acas.org.uk/contact 

Armed with proper legal information,  she could write to her employer (possibly the owner of the business rather than her manager) explaining what they have done wrong, and how much back pay she believes she is due -  she could then negotiate a figure to recompense her,  offering to accept that rather than taking  action against them . 

At the same time,  she should be looking for another job.  This company clearly have no respect for your wife,  and she deserves MUCH better than the treatment they give her. 

Jon_01

easy said:

Assuming that your wife is actually an employee (employer takes care of PAYE, National Insurance and pension contributions)  rather than self employed, then her employer is well out of order here,  they can't just reduce her contracted hours from 25 to 15 without notice or consultation,  and they certainly can't then just decide not to pay her 15 hours because they didn't have enough work !

Seriously,  In your shoes I'd give the ACAS help line a call in the first instance  https://www.acas.org.uk/contact 

Armed with proper legal information,  she could write to her employer (possibly the owner of the business rather than her manager) explaining what they have done wrong, and how much back pay she believes she is due -  she could then negotiate a figure to recompense her,  offering to accept that rather than taking  action against them . 

At the same time,  she should be looking for another job.  This company clearly have no respect for your wife,  and she deserves MUCH better than the treatment they give her. 

Thank you for that. Very useful.

Yes, she is an employee.

Unfortunately, the issue is that the owners really aren't interested in any problems, that's what the manager it there for and they are totally useless. 

The owners are a point in their profession where they're treated like gods and don't really connect with the mere mortals below them.  They have already soundly lost 2 tribunals But as they're multi millionaire they don't really care and just let their manager carry on doing whatever she likes. . .

On the one hand, it would be great to just let the manager carry on like that and then get my wife to start her own tribunal!  But why put yourself through that?

She's decided that she's going to carry on til Christmas and then take early retirement and leave it all behind her.

PixelPound

Jon_01 said:

easy said:

Assuming that your wife is actually an employee (employer takes care of PAYE, National Insurance and pension contributions)  rather than self employed, then her employer is well out of order here,  they can't just reduce her contracted hours from 25 to 15 without notice or consultation,  and they certainly can't then just decide not to pay her 15 hours because they didn't have enough work !

Seriously,  In your shoes I'd give the ACAS help line a call in the first instance  https://www.acas.org.uk/contact 

Armed with proper legal information,  she could write to her employer (possibly the owner of the business rather than her manager) explaining what they have done wrong, and how much back pay she believes she is due -  she could then negotiate a figure to recompense her,  offering to accept that rather than taking  action against them . 

At the same time,  she should be looking for another job.  This company clearly have no respect for your wife,  and she deserves MUCH better than the treatment they give her. 

Thank you for that. Very useful.

Yes, she is an employee.

Unfortunately, the issue is that the owners really aren't interested in any problems, that's what the manager it there for and they are totally useless. 

The owners are a point in their profession where they're treated like gods and don't really connect with the mere mortals below them.  They have already soundly lost 2 tribunals But as they're multi millionaire they don't really care and just let their manager carry on doing whatever she likes. . .

On the one hand, it would be great to just let the manager carry on like that and then get my wife to start her own tribunal!  But why put yourself through that?

She's decided that she's going to carry on til Christmas and then take early retirement and leave it all behind her.

They probably treat your wife like that because they know they can get away with it.

Seriously, advice is needed, because it sounds like she'd have a very good case of getting the 10 hours back pay for each week they haven't paid her plus compensation for what sounds like a lot of stress. If she is considering early retirement, then that's veering towards unfair dismissal.

I'm sure multimillionaire owners do care, especially if it is costing them money - one thing millionaires are concerned about is keeping their money.

Even if she retires she still has a case, but at the very least seeking advice means she would know all her options, and then can decide to go further or not.