Different contract to my husband for the same job

RaisedByWolves

I took a job as a software developer at the same company as my husband. Despite me asking, they did not supply the terms of my contract, other than salary, until my first day of work. I wasn't worried because I assumed it would be the same as his, as it is the same role. 

We both work part time.  His contract is 25 days leave pro-rata, plus all bank holidays. 

On the first day of work I was given a contract with 20 days leave pro-rata, and bank holidays pro-rata. I would not be allowed to work on bank holidays, so would have to use use my normal leave to cover some bank holidays.

I successfully persuaded them to change my leave to 25 days pro-rata (I would not have taken the job with a 20 day allowance) but they would not move on the pro-rata bank holidays.

Their explanation is that their policies have changed since he started.  I can see the view that not making bank holidays pro-rata is unfair on full time staff. However, this is what he gets and I think it was not unreasonable of me to expect the same. I have read that you cannot treat staff doing the same job differently - would that apply in this case? It's not even that many days but the principle annoys me, especially as I was not told it would be different to him until I had left my previous job!

Thanks

DullGreyGuy

RaisedByWolves said:
I have read that you cannot treat staff doing the same job differently - would that apply in this case? It's not even that many days but the principle annoys me, especially as I was not told it would be different to him until I had left my previous job!

Where did you read that?

It's very common for people with different lengths of tenure to be on different terms. Likewise if a company has been acquired then those staff are likely to be on other terms from those that originate from the buying company. Also people who have come up through the company may be on different terms than those that jumped straight into more senior roles. 

Obviously if number of days holiday was a key item for you then really should have asked how many days it was before accepting the offer and negotiating then if you weren't happy about the pro-rata element. 

RaisedByWolves

Ok thanks. I wasn't given any indication my contract would be different to his, but should have put my foot down about getting the contract first. Lesson learnt!

Undervalued

RaisedByWolves said:

I took a job as a software developer at the same company as my husband. Despite me asking, they did not supply the terms of my contract, other than salary, until my first day of work. I wasn't worried because I assumed it would be the same as his, as it is the same role. 

We both work part time.  His contract is 25 days leave pro-rata, plus all bank holidays. 

On the first day of work I was given a contract with 20 days leave pro-rata, and bank holidays pro-rata. I would not be allowed to work on bank holidays, so would have to use use my normal leave to cover some bank holidays.

I successfully persuaded them to change my leave to 25 days pro-rata (I would not have taken the job with a 20 day allowance) but they would not move on the pro-rata bank holidays.

Their explanation is that their policies have changed since he started.  I can see the view that not making bank holidays pro-rata is unfair on full time staff. However, this is what he gets and I think it was not unreasonable of me to expect the same. I have read that you cannot treat staff doing the same job differently - would that apply in this case? It's not even that many days but the principle annoys me, especially as I was not told it would be different to him until I had left my previous job!

Thanks

You have read wrong, or at least a gross simplification!

You cannot be treated differently because of certain legally protected criteria such as gender, race etc. Also you cannot be treated less favourably simply because you are part time (obviously pro rata). Beyond that there are almost no rights to be treated the same as another employee.

There can be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons for treating two people doing broadly the same job differently. One that is often forgotten is simply supply and demand at the times of recruitment. If you can't easily get a good person when required it may be necessary to pay a premium. At another time there may be many good people looking for a job.

Marcon

RaisedByWolves said:

 I have read that you cannot treat staff doing the same job differently - would that apply in this case?

You can't unlawfully discriminate, which is where I think the confusion has crept in. If your contract is less favourable than his, based on a 'protected characteristic' (ie you're female but he's male), then that would be unlawful. Changing contractual terms for all new hires doesn't come into that category.

housebuyer143

Do you work 5 days a week or less and is this the same for you both?

RaisedByWolves

housebuyer143 said:

Do you work 5 days a week or less and is this the same for you both?

We both work 3 days per week

DullGreyGuy

RaisedByWolves said:

Ok thanks. I wasn't given any indication my contract would be different to his, but should have put my foot down about getting the contract first. Lesson learnt!

You don't necessarily need the full contract you just need to ensure that you have asked about any criteria that are important to you like holiday, working hours, bonus, pension, maternity leave, profit share etc. If you don't know these things (the ones important to you) how can you compare offers or compare an offer to your current employment?

There is no legal requirement for an employer to even give you a full written contract of employment, though it's sensible that they do. They must give you a Statement of Employment Particulars which is made up of a short doc that must be given by day 1 and a longer element that must be given in the first 2 months but even those two together wouldn't be a full contract. 

Undervalued

DullGreyGuy said:

RaisedByWolves said:

Ok thanks. I wasn't given any indication my contract would be different to his, but should have put my foot down about getting the contract first. Lesson learnt!

You don't necessarily need the full contract you just need to ensure that you have asked about any criteria that are important to you like holiday, working hours, bonus, pension, maternity leave, profit share etc. If you don't know these things (the ones important to you) how can you compare offers or compare an offer to your current employment?

There is no legal requirement for an employer to even give you a full written contract of employment, though it's sensible that they do. They must give you a Statement of Employment Particulars which is made up of a short doc that must be given by day 1 and a longer element that must be given in the first 2 months but even those two together wouldn't be a full contract. 

But there is little or no useful redress if they don't!

A "contract", in law, simply requires offer and acceptance and there is generally no requirement for it to be written down, let alone signed. Obviously if it not then it is harder to prove what was agreed in the event of a dispute. However, in a civil dispute, "proof" is decided on the balance of probabilities (i.e 51%) so that can simply mean who the judge finds to be more convincing!

housebuyer143

RaisedByWolves said:

housebuyer143 said:

Do you work 5 days a week or less and is this the same for you both?

We both work 3 days per week

Then it's completely normal to pro rata bank holiday. If you got 8, you are getting more annual leave than someone who works 5 days a week, which isn't fair on them. They are not doing anything illegal requiring bank holiday to be pro rata like the other leave would be.  

See it as your husband got a really good deal, rather than you are getting a bad one.