Overtime pay

[ExRes]

I'm rather surprised that this idiotic decision hasn't been raised on here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896810

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that overtime was paid for work carried out beyond your contractual hours, if you're on holiday then you aren't working extra hours, so how can you be entitled to be paid for work you haven't carried out

How many companies will go to the wall because of this stupid ruling is just guesswork of course, but how companies are supposed to survive while paying two people for doing one persons work needs some explaination

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will catch out unscrupulous employers who are setting basic hours as part time and paying overtime up to full time. But in my view it should not be retrospective.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not sure what I feel about this.
I think really, there are two "types" of overtime.

The first is the occasional overtime that people do because there is some extra work, or even just to make their days a bit less stressful (E.g. I sometimes will stay in the office an extra half hour, I don't get paid for it but it makes the next day less busy and so less stressful. I don't even get paid overtime but it really doesn't bother me because my employer is not taking the mick and other perks we get more than make up for it).

The second is regular, expected overtime that you pretty much have no choice but to do, where it is essentially "part of the job" and should really be included in your contracted hours. To me, if that is the case then your "working hours" are actually the hours you do including the overtime, so your holiday pay should include that too.

 

[deltic]

I'm rather surprised that this idiotic decision hasn't been raised on here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896810

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that overtime was paid for work carried out beyond your contractual hours, if you're on holiday then you aren't working extra hours, so how can you be entitled to be paid for work you haven't carried out

How many companies will go to the wall because of this stupid ruling is just guesswork of course, but how companies are supposed to survive while paying two people for doing one persons work needs some explaination

Unfortunately far too many people work permanent compulsory overtime and in this case holiday pay should be based on the extra hours worked. In other cases overtime while not "compulsory" is custom and practice and again it could be argued that holiday pay should be based on the normal number of hours worked rather than the basic contractual hours.

At my place of work we have had people who have been forced to go on short time weeks and then when work picks up do the extra hours as overtime rather than reinstating their normal hours. These extra hours dont count towards holidays and are not pensionable either.A practice I believe is morally wrong.

 

[Tom B]

Many unscrupulous companies use this to pay their staff less. For example, a cleaner may be contracted to work from 6am to 1pm, but actually works 6am to 9pm every day, claiming the extra as overtime. So it's the accepted practice that they work the overtime - yet they won't get paid for it for holidays.

The definition of "expected" overtime is difficult. Some people have explicitly stated in their contract that they must work overtime when required, perhaps within certain parameters. Other people may be entirely free to choose.

But some may be morally obliged. Let's say that a shift needs covered, there are 5 people in your team, 2 are already working that shift, another one is not qualified to do what needs doing, and the other is away on holiday that day. Leaving you, so you agree to do it to help out and keep things going, even though you'd rather spend the day at home. Are you obliged?

Equally, once per month some regular overtime occurs which 4 people work in a specific way. This has been the case for about 5 years - with alterations as staff have come and gone or changed patterns - but essentially it works the same way. Would I be able to choose not to do it this month - morally or legally? It could be argued that by doing the same overtime once per month for 5 years you've accepted it being part of your working week. (As it happens, there is another person who isn't interested in the overtime but will fill in to help out if required, which usually resolves the situation amicably if somebody needs a month off).

 

[rdeez]

In a previous job I was contracted to work 44 hours a week, however overtime was (until near the time I departed) compulsory, which meant in practice I often worked up to 56 hours per week. Additionally, shift managers like myself were required to start 15 minutes earlier than other staff, every single shift - which wasn't reflected in our contracted hours. I viewed this as part of my contract, as it was required of us - something which they very reluctantly recognised after trying to bring disciplinary action against me for not arriving 15 minutes prior to my shift on several occasions, at which time I pointed out the irregularity.

Of course, when I took leave, this was paid at 44 hours a week. This ruling makes sense where overtime is compulsory and regular to the point that someone's regular weekly hours are, on average, higher than their contracted.

 

[Greenback]

I could be wrong, as I never did it, but when I worked for Royal Mail there was a type of overtime that was called scheduled attendance. It was an agreement between the employee and employer that they would normally work extra hours every week, and for this they received a slightly enhanced rate of pay plus their SA work was included in holiday pay during periods of annual leave.

It was over 20 years ago so I apologise if I've got it slightly wrong. If I'm right it shows how it's possible to have a clear distinction between regular overtime and occasional, as required overtime.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think it depends...

In my job I don't get paid for overtime, so when I take a day's holiday I don't miss out on the "extra" pay. (Equally when I take an hour off because I'm taking my car into the garage, or I take an extra hour for lunch because I'm meeting a friend, etc, my pay doesn't get docked).

In a previous job I was paid by the hour and contracted to work 35 hours per week. There was regular overtime for which I was paid time and a half. The overtime was optional but I thought the "and a half" was designed to recognise that it was extra work. In a sense the "and a half" made up for it not counting for holiday pay purposes.

 

[Amberley54]

I'm rather surprised that this idiotic decision hasn't been raised on here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896810

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that overtime was paid for work carried out beyond your contractual hours, if you're on holiday then you aren't working extra hours, so how can you be entitled to be paid for work you haven't carried out

How many companies will go to the wall because of this stupid ruling is just guesswork of course, but how companies are supposed to survive while paying two people for doing one persons work needs some explaination

Yes you are out of date on this issue. And like the scandal where employers got away with paying women less than men for work of equal value for years, this ruling has seen them get their cumuppance.

One major side effect is that the lizards that have fed off the PPI and industrial injury issues for the pat decade will now probablyn throw their efforts behind this issue to persuade gullible and vulnerable potential victims to sign away a significant % any payments due.

 

[ExRes]

Yes you are out of date on this issue. And like the scandal where employers got away with paying women less than men for work of equal value for years, this ruling has seen them get their cumuppance.

One major side effect is that the lizards that have fed off the PPI and industrial injury issues for the pat decade will now probablyn throw their efforts behind this issue to persuade gullible and vulnerable potential victims to sign away a significant % any payments due.

What are you on about, the issue of paying people overtime for work they haven't done while paying a second employee for actually doing it has nothing whatsoever to do with equal pay for women as was happening in Birmingham

Perhaps you could explain the rationale behind paying two people for doing the same job while risking the jobs of numerous employees because their employer won't be able to afford to pay money out with no return, and before you even mention it, no, it has nothing to do with the terrible mill owner taking advantage of his poor employees, any and every company, regardless of the employer/employee relationship will have to find money that they won't have coming in, explain that one to the employees who get their P45 instead of overtime pay for no overtime

 

[GB]

When I worked for sainsburys, holiday pay was calculated based on your contracted working week. I was contracted a minimum 8 hours per week but regularly did around 30 hours. When I took 2 weeks annual leave I was paid 16 hours effectively losing 44 hours. It was only when they bumped my contract up to 35 hours I actually had any meaningful holiday pay.

 

[Butts]

When I worked for sainsburys, holiday pay was calculated based on your contracted working week. I was contracted a minimum 8 hours per week but regularly did around 30 hours. When I took 2 weeks annual leave I was paid 16 hours effectively losing 44 hours. It was only when they bumped my contract up to 35 hours I actually had any meaningful holiday pay.

My son was in a similar set up when he worked for TKMax, contracted for 16 hours on which his holiday pay was based, but regularly working 30 hours per week or more.

 

[cf111]

My former employer will be getting a letter asking nicely for my money if the Court of Appeal agree. No qualms from my side, they have no scruples.

 

[carriageline]

It really needs to be on a case by case basis. Personally, (for me in my situation) I would rather it didn't happen, as I can see more negative aspects than positive.

And what about the smaller companies, that will have to put their prices up and then can't remain competitive? I also feel future pay rises could be affected by it.

Personally, the matters of zero hour contracts and the like needs to be addressed.

Although I did read somewhere it wouldn't be backdated, which I agree with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

When I worked for sainsburys, holiday pay was calculated based on your contracted working week. I was contracted a minimum 8 hours per week but regularly did around 30 hours. When I took 2 weeks annual leave I was paid 16 hours effectively losing 44 hours. It was only when they bumped my contract up to 35 hours I actually had any meaningful holiday pay.

Exactly the same thing happened to me on the railway when I was contracted for 16 hours but actually worked full time. The company refused to wait until my contract was changed, and insisted I had to take two weeks leave even though I'd only been working for them for four months.

To say I was a bit put out is a massive understatement.

 

[Johnuk123]

My former employer will be getting a letter asking nicely for my money if the Court of Appeal agree. No qualms from my side, they have no scruples.

I wouldn't get too excited as this case has miles to go yet including Europe, estimates are 2-5 years.

 

[richw]

My former employer will be getting a letter asking nicely for my money if the Court of Appeal agree. No qualms from my side, they have no scruples.

They are only allowing backdated claims for 3 months, so depends how long ago you are talking about.

When I worked for a fast food chain, I was contracted to 4 hours a week.
Holiday pay though was accumulated each week as a percentage of gross pay, so the pay out was based on the amount I actually earned.
The percentage used for the accumulation was equivalent to the number of weeks holiday we were allowed in a year, so 4 weeks holiday entitlement would accrue 8% of gross pay for example.
when we requested holiday we were asked what percentage of our holiday pay accrued we would like paid out. I tended to take 1 or 2 holiday a year and have a massive payout for it!

 

[Tetchytyke]

And what about the smaller companies, that will have to put their prices up and then can't remain competitive?

A company that cannot afford to pay its staff properly doesn't deserve to stay in business.

This ruling has come about because so many employers use short-hours or zero-hours contracts, claiming that any additional hours are "overtime", so as to avoid paying holiday pay and sick pay. Because employers are abusing the system and abusing their staff, the Courts have to decide this to make sure that employees get the protection they're supposed to get.

It's unclear who it will affect exactly, but I would assume it will apply to overtime that is regular and constant but not to overtime that is occasional, exceptional and voluntary.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the railways, given that most TOCs rely on regular overtime to fulfil their basic service obligations. It'll also affect subcontractors like Rail Gourmet, who have all sorts of weird and wonderful wheezes to keep staff rights low (e.g. they used to claim each trolley operative was "self employed").

This will be considered an unlawful deduction from wages and so there is only a three-month window to bring a claim. There isn't going to be much retrospective liability.

 

[O L Leigh]

It will be interesting to see how this affects the railways, given that most TOCs rely on regular overtime to fulfil their basic service obligations.

Indeed.

My roster calls for me to work 1 in 3 Sundays as overtime outside of the working week. While I can decline them it is still not guaranteed that I don't have to work them as it may not be possible to find someone else to cover them. These "committed Sundays" are common practice across almost all TOCs.

I'm sure these legal developments are being watched with interest in messrooms up and down the network. If there is a chance to claim the committed Sundays a member of staff "would have worked" had they not been on rostered leave I'm sure it will be taken.

O L Leigh

 

[carriageline]

Indeed.

My roster calls for me to work 1 in 3 Sundays as overtime outside of the working week. While I can decline them it is still not guaranteed that I don't have to work them as it may not be possible to find someone else to cover them. These "committed Sundays" are common practice across almost all TOCs.

I'm sure these legal developments are being watched with interest in messrooms up and down the network. If there is a chance to claim the committed Sundays a member of staff "would have worked" had they not been on rostered leave I'm sure it will be taken.

O L Leigh

Exactly the same on Network Rail. We work 2 in 5, they are not compulsory but if no one else can work them then you have to work it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[muz379]

It really depends on the situation .

If its compulsory overtime then it should be included as part of holidays , unless the person gets a day in lieu for overtime worked .

If the overtime is done so regularly that it ought really to be contractual hours then I think this ruling should apply .

I used to work at a place which contracted me and a lot of other staff to 20 hours so that we didnt need to be paid sick pay etc . However because I needed to pay my bills I did a lot of overtime most weeks working 35-40 hours .

The problem then came in that I didnt want to take a week off work on holiday because I would loose about £100 in my pocket per week . at the time I was really running a tight budget .

At another job I had holiday pay was worked out as the average number of hours a week you did for the 6 weeks prior to your holiday . So if I worked 40 hours a week for 6 weeks then went off for a week I got paid 40 hours . I didnt do much overtime there because It was just a weekend job whilst at uni but people seemed quiet happy with the policy .

 

[reb0118]

.....We work 2 in 5, they are not compulsory.....

That's handy if you had a family engagement to attend you can get the Sunday off.

......but if no one else can work them then you have to work it.

Wait a minute, so you're not getting that Sunday off after all!

This smacks off hypocrisy. I assume that you do not get paid these rostered Sunday's when you are on holiday or sick?

 

[Tetchytyke]

We work 2 in 5, they are not compulsory but if no one else can work them then you have to work it.

So you don't have to work it if you can get cover, but if you can't get cover you do?

That sounds pretty compulsory to me!

 

[carriageline]

So you don't have to work it if you can get cover, but if you can't get cover you do?



That sounds pretty compulsory to me!

Precisely. They are outside of our working week, and we are paid extra for them, but we have to work them if they can't cover it (which technically people don't turn their nose up at an extra Sunday, so it's not normally a problem!)

And correct, if we are off sick or on holiday, we are not paid for it and it goes down to sunday not available (same as our rest days when we are off, they go down as RDNA)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[O L Leigh]

Why the shock? The topic of committed Sundays comes up regularly here with regard to Sunday working and industrial relations. I thought it would have already been well understood.

O L Leigh

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oh I'm not shocked in the slightest, I know it's a problem and it's why EMT and FCC had huge problems with Sunday services in the past.

It is an excellent example of why the Tribunal decided what they decided. If you HAVE to work something then that is part of your normal working pattern and you should get paid properly for it.

You never know, it might even encourage TOCs to actually have enough staff...

 

[Butts]

A company that cannot afford to pay its staff properly doesn't deserve to stay in business.This ruling has come about because so many employers use short-hours or zero-hours contracts, claiming that any additional hours are "overtime", so as to avoid paying holiday pay and sick pay. Because employers are abusing the system and abusing their staff, the Courts have to decide this to make sure that employees get the protection they're supposed to get.

It's unclear who it will affect exactly, but I would assume it will apply to overtime that is regular and constant but not to overtime that is occasional, exceptional and voluntary.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the railways, given that most TOCs rely on regular overtime to fulfil their basic service obligations. It'll also affect subcontractors like Rail Gourmet, who have all sorts of weird and wonderful wheezes to keep staff rights low (e.g. they used to claim each trolley operative was "self employed").

This will be considered an unlawful deduction from wages and so there is only a three-month window to bring a claim. There isn't going to be much retrospective liability.

Well if you take The Living Wage as a yardstick that knocks out a huge number of companies