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?

@FredaFox

Without seeing your payslip you are already saying discrimination and making a big issue. Yes it’s frustrating you have been paid wrong but at least get your facts straight first and check why. This could be a genuine error, while not right it could be something quickly and easily fixed, it could also be like a pp said, you’ve been emergency taxed. Why not check the facts before being led down a discriminatory rabbit hole? If it is discrimination it should absolutely be questioned

@FredaFox you are being really unfair to the OP. I pointed out the potential discrimination based on the use of 365 pay methodology. ellint.net/news/sector/cross-border-hr-policies/uk-teachers-strike/

The issue the OP is facing is a known common occurrence with 365 methodology. The court of appeal decision above fails to take into account the impact of 1/365 on compressed hours and part time employees. In this case the methodology benefits them but reverse this for paying a single KIT to SPLIT day and the hourly rate can plummet.

@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?"

As long as you have been treated less favourably than a full time worker then you have been discriminated on based in gender. Easily proven given the majority of part time workers are women and therefore are disadvantaged as a group. You need to u def stand the calculation thought and ask how it would have been done if you worked full time.

As long as you have been treated less favourably than a full time worker then you have been discriminated on based in gender.

This is wrong.

If we accept (which is not a given) that the process they use disadvantages part time employees or those with compressed hours then there are two legal issues (ignoring the NMW problem);

1. direct discrimination on grounds of part time stays in breach of the part time workers regulations
2. potential indirect sex discrimination (there is no such thing as gender discrimination) on the basis that a requirement of criteria or policy disadvantages one sex (sex in this case but applies on other protected characteristics as well, except age) over another and, generally, there are more female than male part time staff.

The first has no justification at all and is outright illegal if that is happening.

The issue of indirect discrimination is that it can be lawful if it can be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim. We have no idea if the employer has any such justification.

It is known that some payroll methods don't work properly for part time staff when pro rated and it needs manual intervention to make it right and I suspect what has happened here is that the manual intervention has not happened due to the employment starting so close to the cut off, and maybe not all details of the contract getting sent to payroll. It's unfortunate but if they usually put it right then there is no discrimination, just an error.

There's not really any such thing as emergency tax any more by the way, not with rti. The only thing that could happen is that they don't apply the pro rata personal allowance but that's pretty rare these days.

stays = status!

I worked in payroll for a long time.

Usually for new p/t part-way-through-month starters, we would divide salary by 52, then by hours worked per week to get the equivalent hourly rate & then pay that x however many hours that month. That's how it should have been done.

Public sector is known for using calendar days in the month, rather than (for example) weekdays.

Hence why furlough calculations are such a ball ache.

To the OP - I would challenge, as this is obviously unfair in this instance.

As and when you leave, give your notice in to expire on a Sunday.

You don't have an attitude problem.
Your not bored.
You've been paid incorrectly!
Your contact will possibly refer to 260 days. You should refer to your contact to check.

Contracts of employment are unlikely to get into this level of specifics.
They will talk about usual hours worked and annual salary.

To get to calculations - there will hopefully be some kind of employee handbook or other policy document.

Obviously public sector likely to have a lot more info than, say, a 2 person office.

Do not be fobbed off by first line HR computer says no people, either, OP.

Actually, I think the rule is that it's 260 days unless the contract states otherwise, so the contract should state how a days pay is calculated or it will revert to the default.

So, annual salary/260 = one days pay, that * number of days worked.

@VanGoghsDog

Actually, I think the rule is that it's 260 days unless the contract states otherwise, so the contract should state how a days pay is calculated or it will revert to the default.

So, annual salary/260 = one days pay, that * number of days worked.

Is that the rule for councils?

OP missing the point of mine and other comments here. Glad you’re not going down the “discriminatory rabbit hole”, as well described by Freda above, before giving your workplace the opportunity to explain and correct what is likely to be an innocent, if inconsiderate, error.

@VanGoghsDog

Actually, I think the rule is that it's 260 days unless the contract states otherwise, so the contract should state how a days pay is calculated or it will revert to the default.

So, annual salary/260 = one days pay, that * number of days worked.

Where is this “rule” documented, exactly?

Only there are hundreds of thousands of civil servants, NHS staff etc with very different calculations.

I couldn’t find a rule and we have had two people start mid month recently different months - all the methods favour one above the other - nothing is clear - so please link to the rule - it would be very helpful!

Your calculation should be salary divided by 260 days multiplied by 0.4
Surely you mean salary divided by 260 days multiplied by 2 days worked?

Assuming salary of £25k fte your calc would give her £38.46, mine would give her £192.30.

Is that the rule for councils?

I think it's in the Employment Rights Act 1996. I've not had time to check.

Yes, of course payrolls run different methods - we have covered that, but if no method is stated the law defines a default.

I dont think she has been paid incorrectly.

If you usually work 2 days a week (lets say for example sake you work a monday and tuesday) and they fell on the last two days of a month, you wouldn't get a full weeks pay for that week in your monthly salary, you would still only get 2/5 of it, and the other 3/5 days of that weeks pay in the following month.

You think you are underpaid as , even though you were only employed for 3 days of the month, because they landed on the days you would usually work you think you are due a full weeks pay? It doesn't work it out based on what days a week you work, just a proportion of the full time salary. So you get 2/5 of a full time salary every week/month, not a full pay on days you work and nothing on the days you dont if that makes sense?

This is interesting.

The first two court cases said it's 365 unless hours are specified by the contract. Where hours are specified it's 260.

The supreme court decision was specific to this case, where there were annual contracts and a requirement to work outside set hours:

www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/how-should-days-pay-be-calculated

The comment at the end is useful.

I havent really understood at all.

How many days did you work? 2, 5 or 7? You say "a full week". I think if you worked extra hours over your contracted hours for the handover you will initially be asked to claim them back via toil. If you worked your expected hours and it has been paid you should get it corrected next month.

@VanGoghsDog

This is interesting.

The first two court cases said it's 365 unless hours are specified by the contract. Where hours are specified it's 260.

The supreme court decision was specific to this case, where there were annual contracts and a requirement to work outside set hours:

www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/how-should-days-pay-be-calculated

The comment at the end is useful.

We've had two people starting mid way through different months - 1/260 method significantly favours both - a day's pay is worth more/costs more so it will cost more for them to take unpaid leave but you'll get paid more in you first and last months.

Interesting court case above - loads of teachers on her argue they are not paid for all their holidays - this court case suggests they think they are when it comes to day rate deductions.

@User1970s did you manage to resolve this?