Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:06 pm  

My daughter began a part-time job in September, contracted to 21 hours a week.....Since starting though, she has (happily) worked full time hours, apparently covering holidays, sickness, also because they were over-stretched with work, etc.

3 months in, she is enjoying the job and, of course, enjoying a decent pay packet.....The main concern I have though is the holiday pay situation?

With her contract she will only be entitled to 21 hours pay....Also, if the present situation continues, she may get quite a few months down the line earning good money, then suddenly receive a significant jolt, if they decide to 'cut' her hours.

My main question is....Is there any way she can negotiate a contract that is more appropriate for what she is actually working?.....It just seems a little unfair if she was to work 6-12 months full time, they could suddenly pull the plug with little warning.

(And before Dally comes on with his sanctimonious claptrap, I do realise she is lucky to have a job.... )

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:12 pm  

My youngest was in that situation a couple of years ago, she went from having a Saturday job in a Dry Cleaners to working full time for them when she left further education without a change to her contract, after nine months she wrote to the HR Dept and pointed out that she was still on a 6 hour/week contract and could she have a full time one - they upgraded her to a 20 hour contract and so she left shortly afterwards.

There is a lot of abuse of young workers and temporary contracts.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:14 pm  

By asking?

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:20 pm  

Her contract is 21 hours, so assuming she receives the statutory, or legal minimum holidays, then this is pro-rata'd. Her other hours are 'extra', so if she doesn't work them, then she doesn't work them.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:27 pm  

I always under the impression that if you are regularly working more hours then you can argue that is your contract? It's not something I ever needed to do though or even know all the details.

In all honesty though, how would it be favorable to prevent the employer reducing her hours in the future? Obviously I can see why it's a negative for your daughter but if if say the business is failing or simply can't afford to have as many full time staff surely it's better to have guaranteed hours than no hours?

If your daughter doesn't like that she could always get a full time position.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 pm  

By law, where a worker has variable hours then their holiday pay entitlement is their average wage over the preceding 12 weeks.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:48 pm  

The wife of a friend of mine has worked in a Morrisons supermarket for over 15 years and is on a 9.75 hour contract, but has NEVER worked less than 20 hours and regularly works over 40 hours, but gets her holidays based on her contract. It's cr@p, but unlikely to be changed in favour of the worker anytime soon.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:37 pm  

If the addiotnal hours are classed as overtime I wouldnt think additional holidays etc would count

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:55 pm  

In a previous job I started as agency staff so pretty much didn't get paid holidays, but apparently our boss told us we got something silly like an extra quid a day so that over however many weeks we worked it would equate to being paid for the days holiday that we didn't have as such, I eventually got given a 20 hour a week contract which entitled me to 10 paid days per year, which covered the minimum 4 week period, however I very rarely just worked 20 hours, Everyone else had 40 hour contracts except me and one other lad, they all got 20 days holiday and all the rest of it, but me and another bloke working the same hours as them only got 10, I argued my case and got no where, I was given the impression that If i didn't do the overtime then my job wouldn't be around for long so did all the overtime even though I didn't want to do it, some weeks i worked double shifts and did around 95 hours a week in some periods which was ridiculous. Looking back I should have looked at employment laws and had them done but I just left and got another job in the end. I can imagine a lot of company's do this to try and save on forking out holiday pay.

Re: Employment Contract Question (Again!!!!) : Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:20 pm  

28 days (pro rata) is the legal minimum these days

117.6 hours will be her basic yearly entitlement