New job - hours misunderstanding

[AllCocomelonedOut]

Hi, I just wanted people's opinions. Long time lurker, first time poster.
I recently went back to work after having 3 children, so I have been out of work for almost 7 years but before this I had a steady job. I have recently started a new job, 1 month in, and always worked 9-5.

My contract states the role is 40 hours per week, including a 1 hour unpaid lunch. This is flexible, as long as I work my hours. However I have noticed that actually, people are working 8.30-5.30, and this would make 40 working hours, plus 1 hour unpaid lunch, so 45 hours per week. I've always had 40 hours in contracts but it always meant 9-5 with the lunch hour unpaid.

Although it's only an extra hour, it means I can't actually drop the kids off and pick them up, so the job hours aren't right for me. However it was never made clear in the interview or by anyone that the hours were 8.30-5.30, nor has anyone raised it with me or even mentioned it, its only something that I've realised from speaking with others.

Would you raise this? If so, what can I expect to happen? Have I breached my contract, am I a lousy worker? I need to be in a 9-5 role maximum, so if they say the hours are non negotiable I will have to leave surely? It seems a shame as its a great company and they've trained me in the role.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I've always worked 8-4 / 9-5 / 10-6 so always the same amount of hours and always with a 1 hour lunch although never taken, and never had any issues. There was no mention of the hours at any interview stage, and with my previous roles always being what I thought was the norm, I naively thought this was also the same, 9-5. As the contract didn't say 40 hours, plus a lunch, it says including, I thought the 40 hours included the lunch break. I'd rather not include it at all and there wouldn't be a problem but yes it's definitely something I need to speak to my manager about. I just feel so silly and a quite upset about it as I thought I had really done well to get back into work after such a long time off and finding something that fits with childcare is so difficult as it is, so it took some time to actually find this role, and now I think ive messed up by not asking a simple question at the beginning of getting into all this :(

I think you will need to negotiate this with your employer. Are you able to speak with your line manager about this? Face to face would be better rather than email so as not to confuse the situation. You could offer to reduce your break time down to 30 mins instead of the hour.

I'm perplexed at how you've spent your whole working life, and your friends also, think an unpaid break is part of your working hours. You're not working during that break so it doesn't class as working hours. This has been standard for as long as I can remember.

I think you need to forget about what you used to do in your old jobs, it’s just confusing the issue.

That’s a badly worded contract because how can 40 hours include the lunch break. I’ve just gone and looked mine up and it’s similarly badly worded, but because we’re timesheeted everyone understands that 40 hours = 40 hours on the time sheet, and lunch is a separate endeavour (when we get the chance to take it).

Previous contract is a bit clearer: “HOURS OF WORK
Your minimum agreed committed hours of work will be 40 per week, refreshment breaks are paid, meal breaks are unpaid.”

Hopefully a conversation with your manager will (a) clarify and (b) allow you to reduce your hours or work flexi or take only a 20-min legal break or whatever the best solution is without cutting your salary massively pro rata. It’s cheaper for them to keep you now you’re trained and onboarded rather than let you go because you can’t do the hours, then they’d have to go through hiring and training again and that costs.

Yes I will be, I've scheduled a catch up meeting tomorrow. I hope I can either reduce the contract salary or approve the less hours without a break, otherwise it looks like I'll have to leave.

I just have, standard contracts in London in standard roles, all have been 9-5 with the lunch break, working hours was never a question as it was always the same everywhere.

It's a great company and I've only been there a month, so it's not like I've done wonders for the company or even had time to prove myself, so no reason for them to keep me over getting someone else in with no children and more availability I guess.

Remember that they will want to keep you- the cost and time involved in recruiting a replacement for you in the current employment market is a lot. So, they will want to keep you.

Thank you everyone, I really do appreciate everyone's thoughts. I just really don't know how I've got myself into such a silly position, I was really looking forward to going back to work and had come to a compromise with myself over what hours I could realistically do with young children and thought I had it all worked out, clearly worrying about the childcare and balancing parenting side of things led me to such a silly oversight.

Fingers crossed I don't get the sack tomorrow!

Could you do 8.45-5.15 with a half hour break? Or 9-5 with a half hour break and offer to do the extra 2.5 hours im the evenings/weekends?

Has anyone noticed you being late every day and leaving early? Can you do 9:00-5:30 with 30 mins for lunch?
40 hours per week is pretty long hours! In my work it's only clinical consultants on a 40 hour contract - I've only ever had 1 job that was 40 hours and I'm 50!
Perhaps ask if you can reduce your hours

Nobody has noticed as I WFH, so I'm not late or early in the office. When I have gone into the office I left at 5.15, and thought I was actually doing extra time so was pleased with myself! I feel so silly now!
I dont need any break at all really, I'm working from home so my lunch is prepared and I just eat as I work so ideally I could be doing the hours without any break, so I hope they will allow me to do that. I havent even started properly into the role as there's been a reshuffle of roles and a lot of training, so I think everyone is doing all different things anyway. I just feel like an absolute liability now.

If no one has actually raised it and you WFH so it can go unnoticed I’d be tempted to let sleeping dogs lie and just carry on as you are… You’re getting the work done and that’s what matters, and it’s their badly phrased contract that’s confused the issue.

@AllCocomelonedOut they can’t let you do the hours without a break as they would be breaking Working Hours Regulations. If you work more than 6 hours legally you have to have a minimum 20 minute break

I think you're misremembering your
Previous contracts and misunderstood those too

Have you moved from public/third sector to private?

I agree with this! Maybe cut your lunch break down to 30 minutes.

I don't think you'll lose your job for this. In previous roles I've had 37.5 hours per week with half hour lunch which allowed me to work the hours you are suggesting!

If the OP had been in the job for a long time maybe so but as she's new, I don't agree with starting a new job and being dishonest about the hours you're working. It's much easier to sack a newer employee than someone working in an established role for many years. It would be utter madness to not discuss this with a manager now and risk it being found out down the line that you've been dishonest.

I don’t really see the problem. In reality people aren’t robots, we don’t work continuously like machines from 9-5. I technically work 20 hours over 3 days but I often take multiple short breaks because I find it’s better for my productivity. No one is keeping tabs on whether I’m doing exactly the right hours as long as I am usually contactable and getting the work done. Ideally your employer should have made it clear from the beginning what the normal hours of work are and whether they are flexible.

You can’t do the hours without a break, it’s illegal and your employer could get into serious trouble so there is no point asking. You have to take at least 20 minutes if you work more than 6 hours a day.

40 hours including 1 hour lunch breaks says to me that the 40 hours are included in the 40 so your actual working hours are 35

It reads to me as you will be paid for 35hrs but expected to be ‘in work’ 8hrs a day (09:00-17:00).

i also wouldn’t give too much thought to the fact others are seemingly working 08:30-17:30. Don’t people just tend to work hours that suit them?
most likely they have stuff to do or just prefer to get started early if for example the kids are already out at that time. And staying ‘late’ if they’ve got stuff to finish?

ive never worked an office job where people started exactly at 9am and left at 5pm. Ever. Mostly because there was either too much work on or bosses expected you to stay late. But that’s a different issue.

That the lunch is included in the 40 hours, leaving 35 hours worked.

That is not how legal breaks work.

Most office jobs I’ve ever had have ridden roughshod over the mandatory “break after six hours” thing anyway. No one enforces it. (Which is shit and the UK is terrible for long work hours and everything, but could go in OP’s favour.)

Just out of interest, have you had your first month’s salary yet? If so, was it what you expected?

Ask if you can reduce your lunch hour to 30 mins and find 30mins elsewhere - 15mins are start and end of the day so you work 8.45 to 17.15
Others might get pd off if they allow you to do this, but you have carers responsibilities so it's hard for an employer to deny such a small adjustment.

Imo a 40hour week is like flogging a dead horse. We are all done in after about 32 hours...