It's wrong for zero hour contracts to be used like this ?

[Forthehellofit]

Sorry im posting here for traffic and name changed for this.

I cant find any answers from mr google for this scenario.

My friend works for a large organisation that employs people with lots of different sets of skills. The terms and conditions if employment are the same for everyone but rates of pay differs dependent on roles and responsibilities. Bank workers used to back fill sickness/holidays etc.

She has told me that whilst in the terms and conditions of her employmemt, there are various overtime rates set out. E.g. double time, her manager has put everyone in her department on a zero hours contract for extra hours worked. Bank workers also cover these hours.

This means no over time rate. I get this is not a legal obligation, and a luxury these days - BUT its in her contract.

However she then went on to tell me the zero hour contract rate is LESS than her contracted hours.

Surely this is wrong?

So shes losing out on overtine payments plus earning less for working more - doing the EXACT same job ?!

Apparently she was told other departments dont operate this way unless someone is doing extra in a different department e.g. different role, different set of skills and job . She has started questioning it but we can't find any info on this.

So she has two contracts with one company - one with set hours and overtime, one with zero hours? And then when she's done her 35 hours (or whatever) she suddenly switches to 0 hour contract rather than being paid overtime.

Is that correct?

Yes. That's a far simpler way of putting it. Other departments within the same company don't do this. Though there are overtime rates set for permanent staff members.

It sounds very dodgy

I'm not a lawyer but that sounds very dodgy to me. She should speak to ACAS - 0300 123 1100. They're very helpful.

I get paid less per hour doing extra shifts as a 0 hour contract nurse than on my permanent contract. There is no longer an overtime option.

I thought that too. I get if she was going to work in another role or department that would be fair enough, but not for the same job she is doing and to end up getting paid less for it.

@Yorkshirenurse had the overtime tate been removed completley then from your original contract?

are you employed for the same company then doing extra shifts on zero hours contract ? Just wondering if its a 'thing' to do this now.

Can't see it being illegal as it's not the government's job to restrict what can and can't be agreed between employers and employees unless it's obviously exploitative. While she has no obligation to do any work under the zero hour contract the employer equally has no obligation to offer her any overtime on her main contract.

Thanks @user. I do get that overtime rates are not a legal requirement. The original full time contract states what over time rates are . Surely by saying they are not willing to pay it, and saying they have to sign another contract to do extra work, the are in breach of the original contract?

I think what user is getting at is that if the overtime is compulsory then they should be using the main contract. If this is extra shifts or other voluntary overtime then it's fine to be a seperate contract.

Even though original contract states the agreement for extra hours worked?

Bloody hell. They've found a way to reintroduce ADHs! Bastards. I thought/hoped those practices had gone the way of the dodo.

ADHs = additional duty hours. Years ago, junior doctors had compulsory out of usual hours work, and were paid less per hour for this work than between 9 - 5. Usually either one third or one half of the normal rate. And no, I definitely don't mean one and a third.

Unless she has signed the second contract the first contract stands and she would / should get the original amount of pay and overtime rate. If she has agreed to the new terms and signed the contract I'm not sure there's a lot she can do, either way the Citizens advise bureau might be able to help with some of the legalities.

Yes she's signed signed the other contract. Would that mean her first contract is void then ? E.g. no contracted hours either ?

Sorry been to busy to be on mumsnet this week. Don't know for sure but I think if she's signed the new contract the old contract is void.