In October 2013, my employer won a new contract for a short-term project. Due to a couple of recent resignations we didn't have enough staff at the time to cover the extra work. My line manager (who is the Deputy Chief Exec) came begging for my help offered it to me on a paid overtime basis and I've put in the equivalent of 19 days since October.
However, our Chief Executive is now saying that it's more usual for employees who take on extra hours to be given TOIL rather than be paid overtime. She's saying that as there was no contract for paid overtime in this case, she feels there's no paperwork to back up my expectation of being paid.
I'm being made redundant at the end of March and am already owed 6 days accrued annual leave. I don't want any more time off on top, I do want the money!
The paid aspect was the only reason I agreed to take it on - I put some freelance work I do on the backburner to accommodate this overtime so if I don't get paid I've actually lost out financially by quite a bit.
Is there such a thing as a verbal contract in this instance? Deputy Chief Exec said that it would be paid overtime when it was offered and has reiterated this since. I think I have a couple of emails between me and Deputy Chief Exec that hint at payment being the expected remuneration by us both but nothing outright as it was mostly discussed verbally. If they refuse to pay and insist I take TOIL, what can I do? Does it matter that the agreement of payment came from the Deputy rather than the Chief or would it be legally seen as reasonable for me to assume he had the authority to authorise payment?
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.
Work
Employer saying that overtime I was told I'd be paid for will not be paid - is there such a thing as a verbal contract?
3 replies
ComtesseDeSpair · 04/03/2014 11:37
OP posts:
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.