NHS trying to swuueze my time.

[Raindropsandroses123]

I’m posting here for traffic.
So I am trying to work out my flexible working return to work from maternity leave.
I initially put in a request for 23 hours over 3. 5 days (1 long day, 2 short days < 6 hour legal break limit).

My manager has come back to me to say I should round it off (lower to 22.5 of hours) so the WTE is rounded off to 0.6 WTE. Fine.

However he is now saying that I also need to incorporate time for unpaid breaks and work more (over 6 hours) on my shorter days (as per employment law which I am aware
of). I also can’t commit to being ‘available’ for more time in my day with the kids so this is tricky too.

A typical 7.5 hour day entitles you to a 30min break which are are pay deductible. However my original proposal was requesting to work on my 2 short days 5.5 hours (which is on the cusp) with no entitled break or pay adjustment.

My frustration are that my options are to a) work 24 hours with breaks deducted so the pay comes out the same (3x 30 min breaks dedicated).
or b) reduce to 22.5 hours with only 1 break deducted for my long day (but if I change to over 3 days in future they would be so I’d be paid even less).
However when you work out the difference it’s a bit of pay difference over the year like worth a holiday or one month mortgage pay.

My question is has anyone had a manager do this in the public sector with part time/ flexible working? There’s a difference is salary when you start messing about with break time.
How did you get around it? Im so tired at the moment, I’m not sure if I am over thinking this. What’s the best option?
this isn’t an AIBU question.

*squeeze my time!!

I don’t think there’s much you employer can do. They can’t break the law.

You have to have a break, whether or not you work through it. So to be paid for 8 hours you’d have to be in work for 8.5 hours, as you know.

I don't really get what you are saying.

a) work 24 hours with breaks deducted so the pay comes out the same (3x 30 min breaks dedicated). This doesn't make sense - you are either working 22.5 hours but in reality spending 24 hours at work (including 1.5 hrs on break) or you are working 24 hours but spending 26.5 hours at work (1.5 of these on breaks).

I work 7.25 hours a day but in reality I am actually at work for 8.25 hours, an hour of which is an unpaid lunch break.

I work for the civil service and the rule for my department is over 5 hours and you need to record a 20 minute break. Just because the legal limit is 6 hours doesn’t mean that is the policy.

It’s not clear to me from your post what you want / have asked for and what you have been offered.
It is normal to have your working time include your unpaid break if you work over 6 hours - so an 8 hour day with 30 minute unpaid break is the same as working 7.5 hours.
If you want to work up to 6 hours then you wouldn’t need to have a break. If the hours are too long would it be worth starting at 0.5 WTE and do 18.75 hours? You could do one 7.5 hour day - 8 hours with break and 2 shorter ones with no break. You may find that you save on childcare and can pick up bank shifts or more hours later.
I think I’d work out the childcare and the hours / days I wanted to work and write them down clearly as different suitable options for discussion.

So you want to work:

• 2 days for 5.5 hours (11 hours total)
• 1 long day of 11.5 hours, plus break, so be in work for 12 hours

Your manager wants you to even out your hours a bit and do something closer to 3×7.5 hours days plus a break each day, so almost 8 hours in work?

What is the bit your manager objects to? Is it the 5.5 hours without a break? Or the 1 long day? What is the role - clinical or non clinical? Working on site or some wfh?

It’s confusing, I agree. But it wasn’t until my manager brought this whole thing up.

When you work part time and flexible hours the maximum amount of hours at work are
different compared to full tome
working.

ill try my best to make it clearer.

1. On 2 of the days per week my initial request was to work under the legal limit (<6 hours) on 2 out of the 3 days per week therefore I do not need a break on these days. So the hours worked are the hours worked, no pay deducted. So the pay is the same as what I put in (apart from the 30 mins deducted on my longer 3rd day).
2. I have been asked to either round up to 24 hours total (all 3 days are over 6 hours) with breaks deducted and the pay would work out the same as 22.5 hours per week pay.
3. or reduce to 22.5 hours per week (which my manager wants to round off for WTE) with 1 x 30 min break to allow for my 1 long day per week and the other 2 days to keep < 6 hours per week. This would work out as 22 hours pay ( and if I move to have the same hours over 3 days it would go further down to 21 hours per week.

I hope I am making sense!

Are you certain you are understanding your manager? If your manager is keen for you to do 22.5 hours to round to 0.6, I don't see why they would then deduct a break. Would they not just add that on? So you would work 22.5 hours, but spend 23 hours in the building to include your 1x30 min break on your long day.

I work 22.5 hours, as do many colleagues. We all then add the lunch break on from a time point of view, not then deduct paid hours.

No I fully understand my manager.
the problem is it’s a discussion about total hours (wfh 2 short days per week) versus time starting and time finishing. I need to be clear what I’m working versus what I’m getting paid on a part time as this is what goes on to our roster system.
Its not a problem for full time working as that is quite clear to work out.

You keep mentioning pay being deducted for your breaks. Nothing is deducted, you don't get paid for them in the first place! A shift of 11 hours would mean you were physically in the workplace for 11.5 hours because for 30 mins of that you would be on an unpaid break.

I think you are really overthinking and over complicating this.

I’m aware that breaks aren’t paid.
you don’t see the issue.
The problem is that I am being dealt with like I do shift work (because we only use one system). I wfh on 2 days so it’s not like working on site.

Lets put the same problem into a full
time contract perspective.
One person works full time role at 37.5 hours and is told specific time in and time outs 9-16:30 and break time is not taken (forget legalities) but break time is deducted from salary- so actual work is 37.5 hour but paid for 35 hours in salary.

Another person works a 37.5 hours contract and clocks in/ out 9-5 - can take a break and is deducted a break. Their actual work is 37.5 hours and paid 37.5 hours.

The difference between these 2 people is pay and break taken.

Only someone doing shift work and part time
and flexible hours will get this.

NHS you can work 6 hours with a 20min complimentary paid break so you should be able to work 6 hours and be paid for the full time. Hope that helps.

I can’t see how you have worked this out.

I am a manager and my work week is 37.5 hours. That is what I get paid for working -37.5 hours

I get to work at 9am and leave at 5pm and take 30 mins break.

I am on site for 8 hours but working for 7.5 hours and get paid for this exact amount.

There should be no time where people who are part time are disadvantaged in pay with breaks, but you cannot add on a break to the end or start of your shift to leave earlier, full or part time. if people are forced to leave at 4.30pm and add a break onto the end this is not legal but if they only get paid for the hours they work (with a break after 6 hours) and this is 35 hours, then that’s what their contract will say?

on 24 hours a week

You will work for 8 hours and be on site for 8.5 due to a break. You get paid for 8. Multiply this by 3

If you do 22.5 hours you will get paid for 5.5 hours x 2 and no break. Then get paid for 11.5 hour shift on day 3, but be on site for 12 hours due to the break

I’m not aware of any pay disadvantage and it isn’t clear what you are getting at

The other people who posted no pay is deducted are right. No one is deducting pay for breaks, these are unpaid. You just are at work for longer due to them.

The first person your example isn't doing a 37.5 hour role though, they're doing 35 hours. They are actually at work for 37.5 hours because of their breaks but they're not contracted for 37.5 hours, only for 35.

The options in your OP, is your manager wanting you to be at work for 24 hours in option a, 22.5 hours in option b? But you'd be contracted to do 22.5 hours in option a, and 22 hours in b? If so I don't understand why he/she is talking about 24 hours and 22.5 hours, as they won't be your contracted hours.

I've worked in the NHS for years and weekly hours everywhere I've worked are always described as the hours you're contracted for and actually work. I work 37.5 hours but am in the building for 40 hours because of lunch breaks. Nobody has ever described me as working 40 hours.

Does your manager want you to start and end at specific times? But they're explaining it in a weird way?

or reduce to 22.5 hours per week (which my manager wants to round off for WTE) with 1 x 30 min break to allow for my 1 long day per week and the other 2 days to keep < 6 hours per week. This would work out as 22 hours pay ( and if I move to have the same hours over 3 days it would go further down to 21 hours per week

Surely the answer is to be present for an extra 30 mins in your long day? So you're actually in the building for 23 hours, you take a 30 minute break on your long day and get paid for the 22.5 hours you're contracted for?

Thanks but you don’t see the problem and haven’t quite got it from a payroll perspective.

My manager wants me to work specific hours and a specific total hours. But they don’t add up. And there is a difference of £2500 per year (and my own personal time) with both options as mentioned above.

I could have a colleague who works 22.5 hours who takes breaks (but pay will be reflected correctly) whereas I wouldn’t get a break but it could be deducted from my salary due to the input on the rostering system an payroll not knowing the difference between the 2 of us.

But if don't take breaks (because you work less than 6 hours a day) there won't be any breaks recorded on the rostering system? Thus you won't get pay "deducted" for them?

The rostering system isn’t that clever unfortunately. I think my conclusion is that I need to speak to payroll to sort this. Thanks everyone.

A rostering system which can't even allow for shifts where no breaks are taken isn't fit for purpose. I hope you're able to get it sorted with payroll.

I've just reread 3 here. Your manager wants your hours to be 0.6 WTE, which is 22.5 hours per week right? But if in this scenario you only get paid for 22 hours you aren't 0.6 WTE because you're not working 22.5 hours, you're working 22.

WTE/ your contracted hours are the hours you actually work, not the hours you are present at work. They don't include any breaks. So if your manager wants you to be 0.6 WTE equivalent, but are telling you to be at work for 22.5 hours and take a 30 minute break, they are wrong. They need to be telling you to be at work for 23 hours and take a 30 minute break.

You've already had this explain on your other thread. Your manager is correct here.
The breaks aren't deducted from salary though, they're added to your shift time. So if your shift is 7.5hrs you would be one site for 8hrs (7.5 + 30min break) and paid for 7.5hrs.
If you work 24hrs you will be working and paid for 8hrs shifts + 30mins break, so on site for 8.5hrs.
If you want to work 6hr shifts x 3 days, you're asking for an 18hr contract and will be paid for 18hrs with no entitlement to brea
ks.

Thank you, you get it.

I work 30 hours/week and previously did 22.5 hours/week ahead of over more days so didn't legally need to take breaks.

I've done this at two trusts who have used health roster and it hasn't been and to show my actual hours because it has a built in break you can't remove which is offset of the software not individual trusts policy.

I have to manually pop in hours for annual leave not select standard whole day or it will deduct 7.5 hours even though it should know I don't work 7.5 hours/day.

Hopefully you can sort this with manager all of mine have just accepted that health roster details will be a bit wrong.

Is this your issue? If so you presumably need to agree:

• What actual hours you want to work e.g. 22.5
• What hours you will be in the building or logged on to cover a break/breaks
• What needs to be done to make the system work and prevent pay deductions e.g. are your hours recorded as 8.40 to 2.30 minus a 20 min break, but you actually work 9-2.30 without a break

It's not clear from your post if your manager has an issue with you working 22.5 hours, or whether they are also struggling with the system. If they are OK with your hours/shifts, then should be able to figure out a way to deal with the recording.

My official hours are 9-5.30 with a 60 min lunch break. I usually work 9-5 with a short lunch, as do most of my team.