karlak
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 08:35 AM |
|
|
Employment law and shift payments
Anyone on here anything to do with employment law ?
I am in a situation where I may soon be forced off of a shift pattern that I have worked in one form or another for 15 years. This will mean losing
my shift premium of 11%, something that I would rather not have at the moment 
The loss of earnings is not being compensated in any other way, so is a true loss. I have heard about "implied terms" but not really sure
if this really exists, if it does how would it potentially protect me ?
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
|
|
zetec
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 08:46 AM |
|
|
I too work shifts for years. We are given a 9 month notice period, after that you loose the payment. I think it is paid as an allowance rather than a
part of your contract and as such can be stopped. Are you in a union?
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 08:50 AM |
|
|
Check your contract - if it states that the premium is paid in-line with your shift structure then it is indeed an allowance for unsociable hours and
as below.
Def' work talking to the Union or the Workers Consultative Group Rep.
|
|
|
simonwinn
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 08:51 AM |
|
|
I had been on the same shift pattern for 8 years and had 4 weeks notice of a change to regular days. The company did soften the blow by providing
"step down pay" where I worked days and they dropped the shift % in increments over the next 12 weeks.
It should be covered in your terms and conditions but I suppose that depends on the size of the company.
Hope you get it sorted.
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 09:18 AM |
|
|
It has not been written into my contract, but we had a Shift Policy drawn up to stipulate what we get in terms of payments etc.
I found this passage on a Acas website -
"Some terms and conditions may become implied because you have consistently done something over a significant period, eg made enhanced
redundancy payments to redundant employees. This is known as custom and practice."
It is a fact that the company have historically given the loss of a shift premium back to some employees onto their Salary. Probably going to be
called a "good will" gesture I guess.
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
edsco
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
Interesting one.
An ex work colleague had a similar situation only 6 months ago. Over the course of 2-3 years he had been used to working 09:00 - 18:00. Nothing
unreasonable there. However, he was then asked to change his work hours from 13:00 - 22:00 or something of that nature. He claimed those hours were
unsociable hours and wasn't written into his contract. Whether that was the case or not, he eventually got put at threat of redundancy, as his
old job would no longer be available or the hours he had gotten used to were no longer available, and started a 3 month consultation period. This
actually suited him down to the ground as his package was over £8k for only 2-3 years service.
The point here is, i believe his contract was worded something like 'you will work the hours the business requires up to a maximum of 40 hours a
week'.
The fact HR wanted to move those working hours was perfectly legal for them to do so, but it was more the fact that he would get to see his family
etc. The business could have said well you are making yourself redundant by not agreeing to work those hours. But i think they saw it as an
opportunity to reduce numbers and paid him off.
Check the wording of your contract.....if its a little wishy washy, i think you should have every right to challenge it because there is a level of
expectation and also routine after 15 years working the same shift you cant be expected to just do away with 11% of your salary. If you have gotten
used to that level of income you tend to base your way of life around it too.
However there are those that say, any shift allowance / premiums / bonus payments or any additions to income other than your base salary should be
seen as a exactly that....a bonus. And to be fair i would take this line of reasoning. I have seen too many times people who have got used to
massive shift bonuses and and something then changes and all of a sudden they cant afford to live. Whilst i fully sympathise with those people in
those types of positions there is a lot that they could of done to avoid it in the first place.
We come back to the point though......15 years. I'd argue that it was a way of life and the 11% should be phased out after a year. It would
then allow those who are affected to sort their finances out....and believe you me, it takes that long to see the savings trickle through and may be
then do away with the 11%. Assuming of course inflation hasn't gone up to 15% or something. +5% at the moment and doesn't look like
improving!!
Not much legal content here, but food for thought.
edsco
|
|
|
Brook_lands
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
You've got the right bit it is custom and practice leading to implied terms. However, employers are within their rights to vary terms and
conditions (usually after consultation) even if these are explict in the contact if this is supported by a business case/ operational requirment.
It really depends on who your employer is, how many people are affected etc. If you really want to fight (and make yourself very unpopular - which not
necessarily the best career move) you have to seek out a discrimination angle if there is one, still might not get you anywhere but it is the one
thing that makes HR depts sit up and take notice.
|
|
|
