Network Rail - On call payments

[Mshaken]

My partner has to be “on-call” for a week every few weeks for his role at NR.
He does not get paid for being on-call. He also does not get the time in lieu, unless he gets called in the middle of the night on a work night where then he is allowed to start work slightly later the following day due to their working hours policy.

This week he started on call on Friday at 4pm and will be on until the coming Friday 8am.

So far he was called at 11pm Friday evening and working until 3am, and Saturday at 4am working until 5:30am, and also has to check alerts each morning on a Saturday and Sunday, and has to join an hour conference call at 9:30am.

This is very disruptive to our family, and I understand it’s part of his role, but surely he should be compensated for this? Even just for the hours that he works at a bare minimum.
We cannot make plans, he cannot consume even one alcoholic drink, he has to check his phone repeatedly, as there is ongoing works he needs to make sure he keep track of. Again, all fine and understandable, but I don’t understand why they can’t even take the time in lieu!
And to top it all off, he is not on call for just the area he normally covers during work hours, he is on call for the whole of eastern, which is massive!! There are certain projects and works going on and he has no idea the context and background to make quite large decisions because it’s not his usual patch. So it’s quite a lot of responsibility as he has to make big decisions which impact the railway.

He used to do another role on the same pay band and didn’t have to do on call, now his role is much more complex and technical, and it seems a bit unfair.

Can anyone confirm whether certain pay bands are entitled to on call payment?

Just wanted to know if it was his department, or just NR in general? I cannot find any policy on it and just wanted to know if anyone had any information on it at all.

Thanks for your help.

 

[The Puddock]

You and your partner have my sympathy, on-call can ruin your life. Unfortunately in Network Rail it is extremely hard to find any written policy about how on-call should be paid and the rules (if any) around it; it seems to vary by department but management and HR are usually unable to produce anything written down about how it all works. I assume your partner is on a role clarity contract rather than any of the legacy terms and conditions from the former infrastructure maintenance contractors. I can tell you that in my experience in Operations, band 4 and band 3 posts in that department who undertake on-call are paid an allowance which is typically 10-15% of headline pay depending on how often the on-call commitment is.

With role clarity there is - generally - no possibility of claiming overtime but time worked over the 35 hour week should be claimed back as time in lieu, something which is far easier for me to type than for your partner to do. If your partner is in a union then it might be an idea for them to have a chat with their local rep to make sure they are aware of the situation and seek their advice on how to proceed. Perhaps also a discussion woth their line manager around how disruptive they are finding it and how unsupported they feel might help.

I’m really sorry your family is in this position. In my experience on-call is a huge bone of contention in many roles across the company and, sadly, being overworked and underpaid is nothing unusual in Network Rail. The quickest and easiest solution here may be for your partner to find a new role or department.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It is quite possible that your partner is being compensated for the on-call work, just not in the way you are expecting.

Similar roles previously had an explicit on call allowance, which then got amalagamated in the overall salary (which had the benefit that it made the allowance pensionable, improved sick pay etc).
So although partner might not have the on call allowance explicitly shown on the payslip, it's quite likely that it is already accounted for in a higher salary than he would have otherwise. This is particularly likely if he is a manager or supervisory grade.


This would definitely be something a union representative would be best to assist with - as they will also have access to the collective bargaining agreements (which could plausibly include the above).

 

[12LDA28C]

It is quite possible that your partner is being compensated for the on-call work, just not in the way you are expecting.

Similar roles previously had an explicit on call allowance, which then got amalagamated in the overall salary (which had the benefit that it made the allowance pensionable, improved sick pay etc).
So although partner might not have the on call allowance explicitly shown on the payslip, it's quite likely that it is already accounted for in a higher salary than he would have otherwise. This is particularly likely if he is a manager or supervisory grade.


This would definitely be something a union representative would be best to assist with - as they will also have access to the collective bargaining agreements (which could plausibly include the above).

This is the most likely scenario - the on-call payment is amalgamated into the headline salary, which may be a few thousand more than a similar role which does not feature on call responsibilities.

I don't work for NR but it works slightly differently on the TOC side where on call is also unpaid unless you actually get called out, outside of office hours at which point your hourly rate is payable until the incident is resolved and you are no longer required.

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't work for NR but it works slightly differently on the TOC side where on call is also unpaid unless you actually get called out, outside of office hours at which point your hourly rate is payable until the incident is resolved and you are no longer required.

This doesn't apply for all TOCs either. It sounds like a good way to ameliorate the impact of on-call and a reasonable was to compensate someone.

There is no real answer to how on call gets paid for and it works differently across each grade/TOC/FOC/NR/[insert industry]

I would say that it is very personal to the individual and how it impact them and theirs. Sometimes its better to take a role without on-call responsibilities because of the impact it can have.

 

[12LDA28C]

Sometimes its better not to take a role without on-call responsibilities because of the impact it can have.

Assume you mean a role with on-call responsibilities?

 

[ComUtoR]

Assume you mean a role with on-call responsibilities?

I knew I wrote it right the first time!

*Edited*

 

[Mshaken]

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

He unfortunately isn’t compensated within his headline salary, and isn’t a manager or supervisor. There are many seniors in the same team above him who do not even have to be on call, which is just bizarre. Sounds like he has quite a unique set up within his department.

Anyway.. He is going to arrange a call with his line manager to discuss it and also seek advice from a union rep.

Thanks again all.

 

[ComUtoR]

There are many seniors in the same team above him who do not even have to be on call, which is just bizarre.

It's more the case of ***t rolls downhill. If anything, the more senior you get, the less 'work' you have to do. People in the same grade may not have the same responsibilities.

Anyway.. He is going to arrange a call with his line manager to discuss it

It is always good to raise your concerns with your immediate Line Manager. I hope the talk is positive.

and also seek advice from a union rep.

Who may be able to sort out any technicalities for what is and isn't paid and the more specific procedures for claiming time etc. However, they are not always the silver bullet we want. If the job specifically has this on-call in its contract then there is little they can do.


When it comes to financial compensation, that also wouldn't change the on-call issues. You basically get paid to suck it up. I'd also raise the point where it is not always the money that on-call brings. At my TOC; one of the on-call rosters has 6 days off after on-call. The role may have other benefits that other roles do not. Sometimes, especially if you cover a large area, you have access to an on-call vehicle.

In any conversation with your Manager or Union, remember that you need to take a holistic look at the job.

Good luck with it.

 

[Lighteight123]

Are you saying he isn’t paid for the hours he works when he is on-call (like the 11-3 you mentioned on Friday night)?

My understanding of the law is not perfect, but I am sure he needs to be paid for any hours of work he actually does while on-call.

 

[The Puddock]

Are you saying he isn’t paid for the hours he works when he is on-call (like the 11-3 you mentioned on Friday night)?

My understanding of the law is not perfect, but I am sure he needs to be paid for any hours of work he actually does while on-call.

Under a standard Network Rail ‘role clarity’ contract you are only paid for a basic 35 hour working week. Any working hours over and above that (including on-call) are supposed to be recompensed as the equivalent time off in lieu. The practicality of actually taking all this accrued leave is a whole different can of worms altogether.

These contracts have been used by NR for around 20 years now, so presumably if it was illegal someone would have taken the company to a tribunal and won by now.

 

[TheTallOne]

Are you saying he isn’t paid for the hours he works when he is on-call (like the 11-3 you mentioned on Friday night)?

My understanding of the law is not perfect, but I am sure he needs to be paid for any hours of work he actually does while on-call.

Not sure re NR, but in terms of the law it's only a problem if you end up under minimum wage (e.g pay divided by actual hours worked).