"Enforce Overtime" --- Can they?

[H3LL]

In the UK:

For hourly rate employees with no contract stipulating required overtime or unsociable hours, does this seem OK?

We are at a point now where if we don't get enough offers of overtime we will have to enforce it and this will include a compulsory 12-8 shift with extra overtime

Emphasis mine.

I was unaware that it was currently allowed to "enforce" overtime and make "compulsory" unsociable hours but I'm a bit out-of-date with current UK working practice/regulations. Something at the back of my mind tells me that this is against UK/EU regulations unless stipulated in the contract.

I would appreciate info if I'm wrong or what/where to look at if I'm right.

Thanks


.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, I don't know if UK labor laws permit it, but I suppose they could "enforce" it through the time honored means of "do it or you are fired".

[Cleon]

Well, I don't know if UK labor laws permit it, but I suppose they could "enforce" it through the time honored means of "do it or you are fired".

Also depends on if there's a union contract or not.

[brodski]

it would determine the terms of the contract, if the contract which states that you will work whichever hours the employer tell you too, they can do this, provided that they are not making you work more hours than you are contracted to do.
The number of hours you are contacted for is not necessarily the number of hours you work a week, take zero hour contracts for example, you may be contracted to work between 0 and 48 hours a week, and work on average 24 hours a week, depending on the terms of the contract, they may be able to force you to work the full 48 in any given week.

Also note, the working time regulations apply. No employee can be required to opt out of the working time regulations, but the employee may choose to so.

[drkitten]

Well, I don't know if UK labor laws permit it, but I suppose they could "enforce" it through the time honored means of "do it or you are fired".

Yeah, that's how I read it as well. The key question is simply "Could they stand in front of the appropriate tribunal and justify themselves in front of a claim for wrongful dismissal?"

My understanding of UK law is that they could, but people who take legal advice from Internet forums deserve what happens to them.

[brodski]

Well, I don't know if UK labor laws permit it, but I suppose they could "enforce" it through the time honored means of "do it or you are fired".
Actually that would count as unfair dismissal, they cannot unilaterally change the terms of an implied contract like that. The working time regulations will also imply, no employer (with a few industries excepted) can force their employees to work more than a set number of hours over a 4 week period.
The employee may voluntarily agree to work longer hours.

[H3LL]

Quick responses...Ta

To clarify. The overtime referred to is specifically hours worked in excess of those stipulated in the contract. i.e. Contract = 40 hours per week. Work 40.5 hours and you have half hour of overtime at time-and-a-half. Work 39.75 hours per week and you're in trouble.


.

[brodski]

actualy, I should take back much of waht i haver prevously said, fater checkign the facts on http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewquestion.php?eny=188

in particular

My employer wants me to work extra hours in excess of those set out in my contract of employment. Should I have to work them?
The written statement of particulars of employment, which should be given to employees within eight weeks of starting work, should include "details of terms and conditions of employment relating to hours of work and normal working hours".

In order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding normal hours should be specified. Sometimes the employer may wish to retain some flexibility and require you at other times according to the needs of the company. Such a requirement may be stated, but employers can also rely on common law, which lays a duty on employees to work some overtime. However, the requirement to work extra hours must be reasonable and would still be subject to the limits imposed by the Working Time Regulations.

If you are having problems with unwanted overtime you should speak to your manager if you feel that you can. You should also take advice from your union if you have one.

[brodski]

also relevant is

What are the maximum hours I can be expected to work over an average working day?
Those workers covered by the Working Time Regulations must not be required, against their wishes, to work an average of more than 48 hours a week over a rolling reference period of 17 weeks. There are some exceptions to the formula for calculating the reference period for certain industries and occupations, and where the employer agrees a collective agreement or workforce agreement with employee representatives. Workers may agree in writing to work more than the 48 hours average, and can withdraw their agreement at any time.

But I have to agree with Dr Kitten, speak to a lawyer, trade unionist or at the very worst your local Citizens Advice Bureau.

[tkingdoll]

In the UK:

For hourly rate employees with no contract stipulating required overtime or unsociable hours, does this seem OK?



Emphasis mine.

I was unaware that it was currently allowed to "enforce" overtime and make "compulsory" unsociable hours but I'm a bit out-of-date with current UK working practice/regulations. Something at the back of my mind tells me that this is against UK/EU regulations unless stipulated in the contract.

I would appreciate info if I'm wrong or what/where to look at if I'm right.

Thanks


.

Your employer cannot change your 'core' hours without your permission, as this would be breach of contract. Are you saying you have no formal contract with them at all, or that you do, but it doesn't state what your working hours are?

If you have a contract, and it says you are contracted to work from, say, 9am until 5pm, then they can force you to work overtime up to an average of 48 hours per week total but I expect that it would have to be a continuation of your regular hours as you have to have a minimum of 11 consecutive hours rest period between shifts.

I'm confused about what hours you already work, the 'sociable' hours would be 9am-5pm but the 12 to 8 you quote doesn't seem to attach to either end of this.

You don't state if it's 12pm-8pm or 12am to 8am - there are different rules for overnight working.

[brodski]

Quick responses...Ta

To clarify. The overtime referred to is specifically hours worked in excess of those stipulated in the contract. i.e. Contract = 40 hours per week. Work 40.5 hours and you have half hour of overtime at time-and-a-half. Work 39.75 hours per week and you're in trouble.


.
based on this they could probably get away with enforcing 8 hours a week overtime, they would be on very dodgy ground trying to enforce more.
However they cannot enforce any working arrangements which would mean you having less than 11 hours between working days.

[H3LL]

Hmm...More complex than I imagined and flexible.

Midday to 8pm shift. They apparently pay an unsocial hours bonus for those on that shift.

Not me BTW. Helping another. (Or not).

.

[tkingdoll]

Hmm...More complex than I imagined and flexible.

Midday to 8pm shift. They apparently pay an unsocial hours bonus for those on that shift.

Not me BTW. Helping another. (Or not).

.

As a shift can't exceed 8 hours, the employer has probably done their homework on this. What hours does the person concerned already work? That make a big difference to whether or not the employers request could be deemed unreasonable.

[Rob Lister]

My mind reels at both the lack of volunteers (at time and a half or better) and the lack of judgement on management's part to hire more workers. I'm assuming that in the UK (as with some industries here)

once hired its hard to fire, and
very high employee-number overhead

so stop-gap requirements are best met with existing staff and overtime.

It still leaves open the question of why employees are not taking them up at their offer. In most industries here (not all) employees compete for overtime and bitch maddly if they don't get their 'fair share'. Especially Sunday overtime (double-pay)

[a_unique_person]

In the UK:

For hourly rate employees with no contract stipulating required overtime or unsociable hours, does this seem OK?



Emphasis mine.

I was unaware that it was currently allowed to "enforce" overtime and make "compulsory" unsociable hours but I'm a bit out-of-date with current UK working practice/regulations. Something at the back of my mind tells me that this is against UK/EU regulations unless stipulated in the contract.

I would appreciate info if I'm wrong or what/where to look at if I'm right.

Thanks


.

Australia is going through a process of 'freeing up the labour market'. That means companies can do exactly that. If you don't do what they want, they can sack you for no reason at all. They can't sack you for race, religion or other reasons, but they can just say you don't fit in with the program, nick off. It's supposed to be about giving people jobs, it's actually about cutting wages, by forcing people to do what these people want. They can require people to make their job their priority in their life, ready to work at any notice, to maximise company profits.

[tkingdoll]

Australia is going through a process of 'freeing up the labour market'. That means companies can do exactly that. If you don't do what they want, they can sack you for no reason at all. They can't sack you for race, religion or other reasons, but they can just say you don't fit in with the program, nick off. It's supposed to be about giving people jobs, it's actually about cutting wages, by forcing people to do what these people want. They can require people to make their job their priority in their life, ready to work at any notice, to maximise company profits.

I think France are going through a similar thing, there are widespread protests about it. Or I may have mis-remembered and be talking bunkum, I'll look it up tomorrow.

[bpesta22]

I could discuss the fair labor standards act in excrutiating detail, but it applies only here in the USA.

Forced overtime is perfectly fine; so too is firing anyone who refuses (unless there's a stinkin' union present).

[brodski]

I think France are going through a similar thing, there are widespread protests about it. Or I may have mis-remembered and be talking bunkum, I'll look it up tomorrow.
Kind of, in France the proposal is to allow employers to sack young workers who have been with them for less than 2 years without giving a reason.

[Nyarlathotep]

Australia is going through a process of 'freeing up the labour market'. That means companies can do exactly that. If you don't do what they want, they can sack you for no reason at all. They can't sack you for race, religion or other reasons, but they can just say you don't fit in with the program, nick off. It's supposed to be about giving people jobs, it's actually about cutting wages, by forcing people to do what these people want. They can require people to make their job their priority in their life, ready to work at any notice, to maximise company profits.

A lot of states in the US (i.e. Nevada) have "Right to Work" laws that are pretty much what you describe in Australia right now. It actually works out pretty well, IMO. Yeah, the employer can legally do all sorts of things to make your life miserable but it also makes it were there are enough jobs that if you don't like your current employer, its not too difficult to find a new one, unless you get stuck like me where you hate your job but they pay you too well for you to even think of leaving, which is a different sort of problem altogether.

[tkingdoll]

Kind of, in France the proposal is to allow employers to sack young workers who have been with them for less than 2 years without giving a reason.

You can do that here, too.

[brodski]

You can do that here, too.
I know, and a lot more. But that is the specific issue which is causing the trouble in France at the moment.

[bpesta22]

Right to work laws generally just make union security-- the requirement that union members must pay dues to keep their jobs-- illegal.

[Nyarlathotep]

Right to work laws generally just make union security-- the requirement that union members must pay dues to keep their jobs-- illegal.

The ones in Nevada do that too. But here they also make it the law that employment is 'at will' by both parties. Meaning an employer needs no reason to fire you, nor do you need reason to quit. Admittedly I may be confusing several different sets of labor laws. But I have always heard the whole set of law we have here (similar tot he ones AUP described in Australia) referred to as 'Right to Work' laws. But IANAL, I admit.

[sesmo_k]

H3ll, check out union websites for their take on such things. You don't have to be a member to look at them. When we went through a similar problem at work www.unison.org.uk was invaluable.

[Darat]

As a shift can't exceed 8 hours, the employer has probably done their homework on this. What hours does the person concerned already work? That make a big difference to whether or not the employers request could be deemed unreasonable.

A shift can't exceed 8 hours? I know plenty of people that do 10 and 12 hour shifts (including NHS and HMPS).

[Darat]

You can do that here, too.

It's one year over here.

[richardm]

It's one year over here.

You sure? It used to be two years - but when it mattered to me was over ten years ago, so perhaps it's changed.

[Darat]

You sure? It used to be two years - but when it mattered to me was over ten years ago, so perhaps it's changed.

Yep it changed a while ago.

[H3LL]

My mind reels at both the lack of volunteers (at time and a half or better) and the lack of judgement on management's part to hire more workers. I'm assuming that in the UK (as with some industries here)

once hired its hard to fire, and
very high employee-number overhead

so stop-gap requirements are best met with existing staff and overtime.

It still leaves open the question of why employees are not taking them up at their offer. In most industries here (not all) employees compete for overtime and bitch maddly if they don't get their 'fair share'. Especially Sunday overtime (double-pay)

Fair comments other than that apparently the 'headcount' are considered slightly less important than the furniture and the best part of the working day is closing tha door behind you at the end.

.

[Art Vandelay]

It's supposed to be about giving people jobs, it's actually about cutting wages, by forcing people to do what these people want.Imagine someone thinking that just because they're paying someone a salary, they have a right to tell them what to do! The idea that once you pay someone to do something, you must continue paying them to do it in perpetuity seems bizarre to me. It would be like if, once you shop at one supermarket, you need their permission to shop at another. It's like slavery in reverse: instead of a worker being stuck with a particular "employer", the employer is stuck with a particular employee.