Work situation wwyd

[T0getherindreams]

Ok, Long time reader, first time poster.

I have a serious work situation and I don't know if it's unreasonable for me to be so angry. Not angry really, absolutely furious. I have no idea how to handle this and looking for opinions.

I'll be as brief as possible.

I work for a huge, massive, gigantic company, one you've all heard of. I jave worked here for 14 years. A long time colleague, 12 years or so, has just fucked me over for no obvious reason.

Everyone in my department (including my colleague in question) gets a shift allowance, it's a sweetner for being on call over certain weekends.

Because my colleague (lets call her H) has been on long term sick, left, came back on another contract, her on call allowance is less than mine. I don't know why, same job, but she signed up to a new contract when she came back.

Now, two years ago our department stopped routinely working weekends and since then all new starters are on the contract which H signed. My boss at that time said he wanted flexibility to allow for weekend work if necessary and I had no objection to being called in so he left me on my old contract.

Today he called me into the office first thing, first day back from my leave, and asked me to sign a new contract. Apparently H has been emailing HR about me and saying it's unfair I get paid £40p/m more than her because I'm still on the old contract.

My boss said he's sorry but she has made so much "noise" that HR are now on his back. He said she brought the issue up in a staff meeting while I was leave last week, so everybody knows it's her anyway, and he's not being unprofessional in telling me it was her.

I'm fucking fuming, she gets nothing out of this. Nothing. She has messed with my pay just because she could.

No massive back story, no drip feed. I thought we were good work colleagues, even helped her get out of major trouble a few years back.

No idea why she would do this.

What do i say when I see her tomorrow.

Aibu in being so angry?

What would you do now?
Sorry for the long post.

If you bump into H you could always say you have had to sign a new contract and you were delighted with the 6.4% pay rise it included!

And again, AIBU is the worst place to ask for legal/employment advice. I’ve only seen one poster give the correct position (disengage and rehire). The rest is based on opinion, which isn’t at all helpful to the OP.

I don't think the op has been back to answer some of the questions about whether she is the only person on this contract but what's with the everyone should be on the same salary?!

If someone with 15 years of experience is paid the same as someone just qualified then you have major issues. Not least the fact that if someone doesn't get a pay rise in 15 years if they had any sense they'd be off.

If they are doing the same job they should be in the same pay bracket.

Personally I'd be going with the suggestions of getting the minutes from that meeting and going from there. Why was her personal info broadcast like that in a public meeting?

Is this a shift allowance or an on-call payment? Where I work, they are different things. They are also on top of base salary, so it would be an allowance change, not a change in salary - while the end effect maybe you get more or less take-home pay, it should be shown as a separate item on your pay-slip.

It does make a difference - I don't know my peers' salaries. I do know their on-call rates, and they are exactly the same as mine, and I would be miffed if our on-call rates were different, whereas I do expect differences in our salaries because of length of service and so on. (I still think there should be more transparency around salaries, but that is a separate issue.) My on-call allowance is the same as any other British employee in my company, even in totally different departments doing very different work and on a very different salary.

Our department doesn't deal with shift allowances, so I am not sure if they are a set rate like on-call, or a percentage of salary.

Overtime, which can be claimed in certain circumstances, is time and a half or double time, depending on exactly when it is worked. Therefore, that will vary in exact payments, because it's a percentage of salary.

It's important to recognise the differences, because even if the result is less take-home pay, it's not your base pay, and there's a good chance your contract will say something about on-call and shift allowances being subject to company requirements and can be changed.

In the past, we have had people on different contracts for historical reasons involving company takeovers. After sometime (usually longer than TUPE would be relevant for,) HR will go through an exercise to bring contracts in line, and it's things like on-call payments and amount of annual leave which are most likely to be different and that they want aligning. And in the past, some people have chosen to leave rather than sign up to the new contract; others stay with their altered terms. There's usually plenty of notice around it, though, like 6 months or more.

As for complaining - yes, I would have, if I discovered my colleagues got different on-call allowances. I wouldn't mention names, and I would be hoping we all ended up on the higher rate. So I don't think you can blame your colleague for bringing it up. If she actually mentioned your name (rather than making reference to "colleagues who have been here linger and are still on the older contracts," which in effect, might only mean you, but doesn't actually name you,) then you may have some scope to complain about that, but a reach of personal information is actually a separate issue from whether you should get the same on call payments.

Dont sign until you have met with HR - contractual changes need to be agreed not imposed (unless they are planning the dismiss and re-engage route mentioned by your union). You need to know why you can't be 'red circled' - this recognises you are on a protected package for equal pay comparison purposes. If they want to renegotiate your contact they need to give you a 'consideration' to protect themselves against Accusations of coercing you into signing something which is detrimental to you as is the case here. Consideration could be extra holiday allowance etc but is usually a lump sum to buy you out.

Missing the point, but am I the only person thinking that £40 is not an insignificant amount to lose each month? 40p, yes, but £40 is a lot to me.

It's a lot to me. It's nearly 500 a year and I'd definitely notice it. However, I also recognise that in the grand scheme of things, for most companies it would be small beer. And given some of the salaries people on MN think are standard, I doubt it would be much to them either.

Have you actually spoken to HR to see what they've said?

One of my last jobs it had a clause in the handbook about not discussing pay.

Do you have to work with her day to day ?

One of my last jobs it had a clause in the handbook about not discussing pay.

Difficult to enforce such clauses since the 2010 Equality Act.

I don't think you have a strong justification to be angry at H.

She is on a worse contract and is trying to get a better deal for her not a worse deal for you.

But, that is exactly the OP's point. H knew that her contract could not be improved. She absolutely is just trying to get the OP's pay cut to match hers. It's spiteful.

If I found out someone was getting paid more to do the same job damn right I’d kick off to HR. I’m fully on H’s side here. This is nothing to do with screwing you over as a friend, it’s about the priniciple. In fact, if I found out someone was being paid less than me to do the same job I’d also encourage them to approach HR!

So do you not place any value on experience, long service or different productivity levels then? Do you disagree with the fact that e.g. a teacher with 30 years experience (but who has never chosen to go for promotion) legally has to be paid far more than an NQT in their very first job?

It's a lot to me. It's nearly 500 a year and I'd definitely notice it. However, I also recognise that in the grand scheme of things, for most companies it would be small beer. And given some of the salaries people on MN think are standard, I doubt it would be much to them either.

No, I was thinking from the POV of the individual. It wouldn't be anything to most companies. You're right about the MN demographic, though - so many people who seem to have endless thousands available to them on a whim. Remembering the recent thread about the OP's sister expecting people to spend £10K PER PERSON to attend her Caribbean wedding. For me and for most people I know IRL, it wouldn't simply be a case of trying to convince them of the worthiness of dipping into their savings, it would effectively be like having the wedding on Venus.

I'm an HR Manager.

Don't sign. Buy yourself some time.

Ultimately they could dismiss and re-engage you, however this would be a risky move (you could claim unfair dismissal). They could also try and enforce the change, but again this is risky (because you could claim breech of contract).

Are you the only person on this type of contract or are there others?

I'd personally be putting in a grievance (against the company rather than her) and be as difficult as possible about it.

If I found out someone was getting paid more to do the same job damn right I’d kick off to HR. I’m fully on H’s side here. This is nothing to do with screwing you over as a friend, it’s about the priniciple. In fact, if I found out someone was being paid less than me to do the same job I’d also encourage them to approach HR!

This is such a naïve perspective. There are a million reasons why people are paid different amounts for doing the same job:
-length of service
-performance increases
-experience
-qualifications
-recruitment market at the time they joined
-TUPE transfers/ takeovers
-what people negotiated.
I've worked in businesses where there were about 5 different terms and conditions and pay rates for exactly the same role.

As above. It’s not remotely illegal. Or in fact uncommon.

You shouldnt really sign without getting advice but to be honest you will be forced into it eventually anyway because they will just harmonise your contracts so everyone is the same. Only thing is you will probably get some sort of grace period where it will be agreed that the next 6 months or whatever you stay with old contract

So... to recap

You all had contract A.

H was off long term sick, resigned, came back to work for the same employer by which time all new recruits had contract B

H doesn't like this and has complaoned loudly enough for your boss to suggest you keep the peace by signing contract B and accepting pay cut.

And some posters think that is reasonable. FFS! You are all bloody mad! What planet do you live on?

OP. Stay angry. See HR first thing on Monday mornig and ask them to epxlain, clearly in non HR speak, how they are justifying this. Get them to confirm in writing, or email them the gist of it as clarification on the meeting is over.

And speak to someone else at your union, get a 2nd, better opinion!

You anbu. I'd be fuming as well. I absolutely HATE people who tear down other people. I understand advocating for better for yourself, but i don't think it's ever ok to push for someone to have something taken away from them because you're jealous. I am mad on your behalf just thinking about it

We had someone in my team on a decades old, term time only part time contract that my employer no longer issued. There are lots of parents in my team that would have killed for a contract like that.. but they'd never campaign with the aim of that one member of staff losing what was rightfully theirs.

In your situation I'd be livid.

Don’t sign the contract. Tell them you are refusing to accept the pay cut.

Then they’ll either dismiss you and offer a new contract (in which case you have an unfair dismissal claim to fight) or they impose the change anyway (which is a breach of contract and would be a constructive dismissal as it relates to pay).

They can’t make you redundant. Your union is talking crap as they often do

I’d look into a formal grievance. If they want to even the stakes, give the colleague a pay rise - don’t give you a pay cut. Frankly if you cause enough fuss they’ll probably relent anyway because £40 a month is bugger all to a big company.

In your shoes I would be wondering whether I wanted to work at that company any more.

• you’ve got a poor manager who should be telling HR to get back in their box and disciplining your colleague for unprofessional behaviour likely to damage team harmony, but who instead is making it YOUR problem. If you were in my team I’d be working out how much time and money it is going to cost me to replace an experienced and loyal team member, and deciding PDQ that it is worth £40 a month and a fight with HR in order to keep you.

• you have a distinctly unpragmatic HR dept that cannot see the wood for the trees. Again they of all people should know that the costs of replacing you are far more than £40 a month. Which is why most sane HR depts in companies where there are multiple contracts don’t try to force everyone into the same one, just for tidiness sake, because they will lose people and that is expensive. And it must be for tidiness sake they are doing this, because if it was a major problem they should have tried to deal with it before.

My hunch is that this is being pushed by a junior jobsworth in HR who isn’t seeing the bigger picture. See if you can politely escalate to a more sensible more senior HR manager and have an adult 3-way conversation including your manager (you need him/her to chip in to say you would be hard to replace). Ideally see if you can find a way for the HR jobsworth to save face (maybe they “weren’t fully aware of the history” or “didn’t have the benefit of all the facts when they made their decision”....).

This is incredibly shit behaviour from a so-called friend, however I would have a quiet word with someone else who was at the meeting and get a better idea of what was said before you let rip at H.

Don't sign! You're not obliged too and would be mad too. What a bitch!

Sorry @WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll Just seen your post

I have no doubt whatsoever that you're correct, but how can this possibly be contractually fair?

Does this mean that, when a company wants to make you redundant, instead of paying redundancy, they could just ask you to take a pay cut from whatever you're currently on down to NMW and then, when you refuse to do so, consider that you've effectively resigned and so are not entitled to any redundancy pay?

If this is the case, it could be seen that only companies with any conscience (many would say only stupid companies) would ever have to pay redundancy pay.

No, because redundancy is something altogether different. It is a diminished requirement for employees to carry work of a particular kind at a particular place. There isn’t a diminished requirement in this case, it is simply an issue of the OP being on historic but inappropriate terms for the work she is doing.

I completely agree with all of the PPs, it sucks. But legally speaking, the company would be doing nothing wrong to go through a change in terms process.

What happened today op?

As per previous posts, they cannot make you redundant unless they are making your position redundant. In which case there’s usually a period of time before they can then re-hire for that position. It’s 6mths with my company. They would have to give you a large payout given that you’ve been with the company 14yrs, I imagine.
I’m sure if you took it to a tribunal, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Even if you say, TUPE on to a new contract because of a takeover, they usually have to honour your previous contract details. Unless you agree. Which of course they can only encourage you to do. I can see that they could ever come off well from this. I have other Managers on better contracts than I am and whilst it’s frustrating, I’d never act in the way that your colleague has. I’d be pissed off too, OP!
Replacing you would be far more hassle than it’s worth for the sake of £40!