Is this job share fair?

(8 Posts)
MavisCrouton Tue 01-Nov-16 16:52:10

I've nc for this as it could be very outing. I have a second job and have been working for this employer, a well known sports stadium, for more than 20 years since I was a teenager on a match day. About 6 years ago we were all asked to sign new contracts to effectively change to zero hours, ostensibly to give both sides flexibility (so the employer wouldn't have problems if they needed less staff for any particular event and could just select those it wanted, and the employees could feel they could miss an event without being penalised). We still accrue holiday pay based on the hours we work.

I have been in my current role there for 10 years, and in that time have covered the role at the next supervisory level up here and there. Last February, the person in that job was dismissed and I covered the role for the rest of the season, and was put onto that rate of pay.

The job was then advertised and I applied. I was interviewed and 3 of us were deemed suitable for the short list, and weree told there would be trial shifts because the other 2 people had not done that job before and I had, so it would help the manager to choose the better performer. I thought this was fair. During the others' shifts they looked to me for guidance on what to do and how to do it, and I was very generous with my support as I would hope anyone else would be.

Last week, after all 3 of us had completed our trial shifts, the manager said that he had decided not to give any of us the job outright but planned to job share it, so every third event one of us would do the job and the rest of the time we would revert to our previous roles. All of us would receive the rate of pay of the job advertised - ie what I have been on since covering the role last year.

Is this considered to be good practice? I can't help but think the manager doesn't want to make a decision and upset anyone, although I enjoy the role and know I am good at it I wouldn't be offended if anyone else was considered more suitable. Thoughts?

HeyMacWey Tue 01-Nov-16 16:58:08

I wouldn't necessarily say good practice, but it gives them flexibility and would ensure they've got more people trained ready to step in if one of you left and cover for holidays/sickness.

Hope you all got paid for the trial shifts.

MavisCrouton Tue 01-Nov-16 17:04:50

Yes, we did all get paid. That does sound like a valid reason, actually. The job is quite specialist and before this, only one person was trained in each post which meant I was covering the supervisor role whist still doing my own job.

HereIAm20 Tue 01-Nov-16 19:16:48

Are you getting paid that same rate even when you are not supervisory? If so, it seems like a good business practice for the business to have 3 of you able to do the job especially if there is sickness or leave etc.

MavisCrouton Tue 01-Nov-16 19:45:36

Yes, we have all been moved on to the supervisor rate regardless of the job we are doing. In some respects it's good, but it just seems a little strange to me. It's more that it was advertised as one job and then has been offered in a different way.

DiegeticMuch Tue 01-Nov-16 22:33:22

It sounds quite sensible to me. Hopefully the shifts will be allocated fairly.

holidaysaregreat Tue 01-Nov-16 22:37:32

It sounds OK if you are always paid at that rate & gives them the flexibility to use one of 3 people - so if you are ill or can't make the shift for some reason then it's always covered. Try to see it as a positive thing as otherwise it will start to get you down.

lougle Fri 04-Nov-16 17:03:31

If you are all being paid the enhanced rate regardless of whether you are doing the higher role or your normal role, then I think there's nothing wrong at all with it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now