Is this discrimination.

[cascade]

I am writing this on behalf of a friend.
My friend is a senior carer at an old peoples home. Her boss has decided that he is only giving pay rises to certain people.

He has increased the houtly pay of staff who work more than six hours, but he has now refused to pay for their lunch breaks. The staff are now only better off by 2p per shift.

If you work less than 6 hours they have not been given a pay rise. So now my friend who is part time is on a less wage than her full time colleagues. Can an employer do this legally.

What also cocerns me is that they are not allowed to leave the building for their lunch due to numbers on the floor.

I have told my friend if he doesnt pay the carers their lunch they must leave the building.

He also will not pay hand over time which usually lasts a minimum of 15 mins.

Is there anything my friend can do or is all this above board?

Not getting paid breaks/handover doesn't sound right to me. If someone was to fall or anything during tea break - the staff aren't just going to sit and finish their tea. They should be paid if their included in the numbers on the floor.
The paying more to staff contracted more hours, I don't know about.
Sounds like he is trying to pull a fast one.
But could he be struggling - is it to avoid redundancies?

It would've been better if he'd left the wages as they were. Paid breaks/handover, all staff equal - but no rise.

there are part time workers regulations where you can't discriminate against someone because they work part time.

No the care home is full. There is no redundancies on the cards. My friend says they are trying to recruit people.

Depends. Sounds more like a contract renegotiation than a pay rise.

The staff would have to have been given 30 days notice if he intended to change the contracts. They can do this even forcefully by citing business need.

legally you can't pay someone who does the same job as someone else differing amounts just becuase they work part time.

You can however have several diffferent versions of a contract for differing staff. I.e. we have staff that are contracted on 0 hours, 37 hours and 38 hours. They get differing amounts but the deciding factor is what contract they are no not just that they work "part time".

I think he'd find himself in a sticky situation re tribuneral however there is always 2 sides to any story.

It's illegal to pay people different amounts for doing substantially the same job because some are part time and some full time.

It is legal not to pay breaks (although, if he used to pay them, that could be a change in terms and conditions for those people) BUT all employees who work at least six hours in a shift have a legal entitlement to at least a 20 min (unpaid) break away from the workstation - i.e. they must be allowed to leave the building.

Pay for handover is a matter for negotiation unless is pulls them under minimum wage.

What does your friend want to do? If she wants to kick up a fuss, the first step would be to speak to her manager and then raise a grievance. After that, she could think about a cliam if it wasn't fixed.

I have down loaded the rights of part time workers of a website for her. She is going to take this into her manager. (who does not agree with what the owner is doing.) My friend has been told she must write a letter to the owner.