Anyone work on Payroll? Think I’ve been shafted!

[User1970s]

Hi
New public sector role. My department wanted me to start on 22nd of the month but HR would only approve me starting on 29th. I’ve been paid for 3/31 days which makes sense pro rata - to them at least (last three days of the month).

Except, I work two days a week only and so worked a full ‘week’ in those 3 days. Do you think they’ll argue that I’ve been correctly paid?

The reason I suspect that they might not want to pay for a full week is because they didn’t want to fund me starting the previous week (to allow a proper hand over).

I will obviously challenge this but everything is password and login in dependent and I haven’t been set up with these yet so I’m stewing about it instead!

Any thoughts?

[singleagain22]

I would have thought you should have been paid for the number of days you actually worked in the month.

With the daily rate calculated as your annual salary/52 Weeks/2 days.

The methodology they have used maybe works for some but in your case it's resulted in an underpayment.

How much does the underpayment work out at?

[User1970s]

Thanks so much for your reply. I divided my salary by 365 and multiplied by 3 to arrive at the figure I’ve been paid.

So I’ve been paid less than half my weekly pay- so 3/7 of my weekly ‘salary’ rather than 7/7. Despite be contracted to work two days at the start of the week only. Which I worked in full!

[User1970s]

Being

[QforCucumber]

I wonder if payroll have been made aware that you're part time. We've had many occasions where we aren't actually informed and so the standard full time calculation is used where it shouldn't be.

[Rue123]

Hi, you need to gross up your salary i.e. say £10,000/2*5 , then you divide that sum by 260 (working days) and multiply by the 2 days which you worked! Hope this makes sense.

[User1970s]

Qfor, my contract states in clearly but I don’t know how well this is communicated (especially specific working days).

It’s reassuring that you both seem to think there’s an error that needs correcting rather than just saying ‘tough, that’s how payroll works’!

[User1970s]

It clearly

[ScottishStardust]

It all depends on what it's written in your contract. For full time we use salary / 260 days x days worked in that prorated month, for part time we reduce the divisor. You say you work 2 days, so we'd use Salary / 104 days x number of days worked.

However it all depends on your company and contract.

[User1970s]

It was advertised as two days a week.

Which in my industry is expressed as 0.4 of FTE.

That’s all I can say.

But Scottish, how could here be any possible justification for paying me for less than one day’s work when I did two? That seems shocking to me.

[Sunflowergirl1]

Ask yourself if someone full time had done the same, would this have resulted in them being advantaged? If so then you need to challenge the calculation as this could be discrimination on the grounds of gender. It does sound ridiculous.

[User1970s]

Sunflower, I’m not sure how it’s discriminatory based on gender but certainly on p/t status as a f/t employee would have been paid in full for the hours worked. So yes, it does appear discriminatory.

Contract just states f/t salary which will be pro rata if p/t. I’m 0.4. I’m not sure how that impacts your interpretation of my situation, Scottish?

[JassyRadlett]

I had this with HR once - working out pay owed for I taken by working it out as x/31 of a month ignoring the fact that I don’t work 7 days a week and don’t generally have to take leave

They resisted for a bit but then saw they were being totally unreasonable. It was 16 days’ leave so the difference between 16/31 (half a month’s pay) and 16/23 (the number of working days in that month) so a pretty significant difference in pay.

They resisted for a while and then agreed they were being totally unreasonable and changed their policy.

[User1970s]

That sound complicated, Jassy! Glad they agreed in the end.

You know what, I actually don’t really care what the policy or contract says. This is definitely unfair treatment even if there is a policy that tries to justify it. As Sunflower says, a f/t employee would not ever face a situation whereby they were working unpaid, yet I have. So any policy that seeks to justify that would be discriminatory IMO.

I’ll try to keep calm though until I’ve given them a chance to respond (once I’ve figured out the log ins!!).

[Margaritatime]

This is the payroll calculation used across the Civil Service. It is not always right, particularly in the circumstances described.

In your case they may be breaching NMW. To check, take the gross salary you have been paid and divide by the number of hours you worked (contractual) . If it is less than £8.91 per hour, write and claim breach of NMW. You can also report them to HMRC.

If your hourly rate is above NMW then write and claim sex discrimination on the basis that you are part time and should have been paid 7/365 for working a full week.

I would also ask your TU rep, I know they may not cover you because you are not a member but may be interested as this is how pay works for all employees.

[JassyRadlett]

Made more complicated because I missed out half the words! It was for untaken leave - basically their calculations would have been the same as having to take leave days for Saturdays and Sundays....

[User1970s]

Oh I see, Jassy!

Interesting post Margarita. Thanks. My hourly rate is £20-£30+per hour (depending on whether holiday pay in included in the calculation as it’s education based) but I’ve not even got minimum wage for the hours worked!

[Justkeeprollingalong]

@Margaritatime On what grounds could the OP claim sexual discrimination? Being part time has nothing to do with gender.
I'm in payroll and I would have paid you for a full working week as you did your contracted 2 days. My calculation would be £annual salary x 2/5 divided by 52.

[User1970s]

JustKeep, is there such a thing as ‘discrimination against p/t employees’? I missed the word gender in margarita’s post- sorry.

[User1970s]

Sex not gender

[ChessieFL]

@Justkeeprollingalong it would be indirect sex discrimination as traditionally it’s women who work pt rather than men so are disproportionately affected by anything affecting pt workers

[Rainbowshine]

People have successfully argued that treating part time employees is indirect sex discrimination as more part time work is done by women.

Have you actually contacted your manager? It may be that extra time is paid a month in arrears due to when the cutoff date for processing is in the month.

[RuggeryBuggery]

I would just start by phoning HR/Payroll and ask if they are aware of your working pattern which meant in this case you worked your whole week.

[Watchingthetelly]

You have been underpaid based on what you described. I think it’s likely an honest mistake on payroll’s part. I would recommend calmly flagging it with HR and not claiming discrimination as suggested above...

[VanGoghsDog]

@User1970s

JustKeep, is there such a thing as ‘discrimination against p/t employees’? I missed the word gender in margarita’s post- sorry.

Yes, there is a law making discrimination against part time staff illegal, irrelevant of sex.

But this isn't discrimination, it's an error. Errors do happen. Just tell them and they will put it right.

[Soontobe60]

OP, have you checked your payslip -you say you can’t yet access the log in details so I’m assuming your payslips are online. It could be that you’ve paid emergency tax which may be why your pay is less than you thought.
I’m a part time teacher, my monthly pay is my FTE salary /12 / 0.3. However, when I started it was the end of month and I didn’t get my full pay in the first month as I’d missed the pay run. It was included in my next monthly pay (although I was told I could have it earlier if I wanted by payroll).