Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flip

Original poster

Question about bonuses and reasonable employers

24 replies

Lanark2 · 19/02/2016 09:39

Hello, I am working for a company at minimum wage. My salary is derived from living wage. I was told I would be taking part in a performance review, and I did so, and was awarded a reward of 3%.

In the same time, the living wage went up by 5%, so the employer said that because this was more than 3% they would give me that. Seems 'fair' except that because of their living wage agreement, they have also given 5% to everyone else.

It therefore means that effectively my performance reward has been removed-because I would have got the 5% anyway.

In all other grades, a pay reward would 'float' on top of any pay band increase.

Am I right to feel that this is unfair?

OP posts:

Original poster

Lanark2 · 19/02/2016 10:02

By the way, this extra would work out at only about £8 a week, so it's weird that they are resisting, no?

OP posts:

HermioneWeasley · 19/02/2016 14:09

The company has a limited amount of money to spend - 5% is about double the average wage settlement in the UK at the moment, they probably don't have 8% to give you.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 19/02/2016 16:33

They have paid everyone else's, and yes they do have money to afford it..its less than it cost for the legal advice they got the try and see if they could enforce not paying.

OP posts:

HermioneWeasley · 19/02/2016 22:11

So they have paid everyone else an 8% pay rise, except you?

PippaFawcett · 19/02/2016 22:16

That sounds unfair to me but I am not an employment expert.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 10:58

HermioneW they have paid the performance bonuses above the pay band increases in every grade but the ones linked to Living Wage.. All the others went up by 1.5% or so..it is the LW going up by 5% that has freaked them out.. But these are the lowest paid roles in the organisation.

OP posts:

AnthonyBlanche · 20/02/2016 12:13

Lanark if you are in the lowest paid part of your employers workforce I think it extremely unlikely that you know how much they paid for legal advice on any particular issue. In fact I'd be amazed if you even knew whether or not they've taken legal advice.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 12:33

Mmm yeah, because poor =well fick an' no' trusted? Is that right? you weirdo.

OP posts:

AnthonyBlanche · 20/02/2016 13:22

Not at all Lanark. However the lowest paid employees in the organisation I work for wouldn't be privy to information about legal advice taken by the company. It seems very unlikely that the situation is any different with your employer.

I think you are not so much 'well fick' as unwell so don't intend to post on your threads again.

flowery · 20/02/2016 13:24

That's a bit unnecessary Lanark. It's nothing to do with how "fick" someone on minimum wage is or isn't. But it is a simple fact that it would be incredibly unlikely for someone in the lowest paid role in an organisation to be privy to all the organisation's financial information. Which you would need to be in order to make an informed assessment as to whether they could afford an 8% increase for you as well as the 5% increase across all those roles, and to know the details of what legal advice they had sought at any given time and what their legal bills are for any given piece of advice.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 13:34

Amazing. I must be 'unwell' if I don't agree with AB.

OP posts:

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 13:40

Hi Flowery.. Not sure why you think this but 3% has an implication circa £400 in salary.

The legal advice cost circa £500. Management time in managing the grievance circa £800, clerical time circa £300. Meetings relating to grievance took me offline for circa. 6 hours, and an employee rep for similar.

Legal advice was obtained externally.

I would also have expected an internal calculation several what ifs but this hadn't been done according to directors, and also payroll did a 'what if' for my individual case.

You can argue that 'its very unlikely' if you like, but it happened, sorry to disappoint.

OP posts:

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 13:42

The question I have, though, is is this reasonable? Is it legal? Is it artificial reduction of salary? Is it breach of contract?

OP posts:

flowery · 20/02/2016 13:50

Not sure why you think it would "disappoint" me. It rather surprises that you are snarky with people and then immediately ask for advice though. Seems a bit shortsighted really. But there we are. I wish you luck.

DontCareHowIWantItNow · 20/02/2016 13:53

you weirdo

Well making personal comments really helps your case.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 13:54

Because of the background narrative from both of you that I'm lying perhaps? Why would you do that?

OP posts:

HermioneWeasley · 20/02/2016 13:56

To answer your question, yes it's perfectly lawful.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 13:57

And sorry Flowery AB has been hunting every post I make to try to 'prove' I'm lying, mental, etc etc

OP posts:

Nottodaythankyouorever · 20/02/2016 14:28

To answer your question, yes it's perfectly lawful.

^ this.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 14:32

Ok, even if they have written, and awarded, and not withdrawn?

OP posts:

flowery · 20/02/2016 15:04

They confirmed a total 8% increase in writing?

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 15:09

No, they confirmed a 3% performance increase on top of the band, and then that the band was rising by 5% for all staff on that band. In all bands, the performance award is on top of any band increases.

OP posts:

QuinnPerkins · 20/02/2016 15:09

Is the 3% a bonus, but the 5% a pay rise?

So they have effectively said that everyone at your grade is not getting their bonus this year because you're getting a big wage hike instead?

Or is both the 3% performance review and the 5% LW increase a payrise?

That makes a difference, I think.

Original poster

Lanark2 · 20/02/2016 15:20

No, they have said that I am getting a bonus (I'm the only one on my grade, but all other grade bonuses are being paid) but they just didn't pay it because they thought I would 'like the 5%'.

Perhaps they thought that I wouldn't notice that this was effectively removing my bonus. They didn't send a letter removing the bonus, the policy says all staff can have a performance bonus, but just hoped I wouldn't notice, then tried to dazzle me with the '5%' being more than 3%.

When I challenged this, they then said that the first letter was 'misleadong' but they still haven't withdrawn either the bonus, or the process or say, disciplined me, just not paid and said their legal advice was that they could treat our grade different.. But they haven't treated our grade differently in policy, which includes our grade in performance reviews.

OP posts:

Flip