Employment Law

opr

Anyone here know much about employment law?

I work in a job part-time doing about 20 hours a week.

It is a team of people doing the exact same job both full time and part time employee's.
We both work for the same recruitment firm. The major problem I have with this is that full time workers get paid significantly more than the part time employee’s in the company?
Is this legal?
Recently one of my friends has looked into it and they don't think it is. I wanted to make doubly sure before bringing it up with my union.

Any help appreciated.

Blub2k4

Would it not depend on the contracts?
If you sign up for a certain amount that is what you get, it is not as if people are equal when it comes to pay.

Spalk0

opr wrote:

Anyone here know much about employment law?

I work in a job part-time doing about 20 hours a week.

It is a team of people doing the exact same job both full time and part time employee's.
We both work for the same recruitment firm. The major problem I have with this is that full time workers get paid significantly more than the part time employee’s in the company?
Is this legal?
Recently one of my friends has looked into it and they don't think it is. I wanted to make doubly sure before bringing it up with my union.

Any help appreciated.

I worked part time in a number of places and it was allways that full time people got more per hour than part time!
I dont think its illegal either as i think the minimum wage applies to full time staff whereas im not sure whether it applies to part time?(can someone correct me if im wrong on this?)

opr

Blub2k4 wrote:

Would it not depend on the contracts?
If you sign up for a certain amount that is what you get, it is not as if people are equal when it comes to pay.

Is the whole point not that people should be equal when it comes to pay if you are doing the same job.

Example - A woman can't get paid less for doing the same job as a man .

SoupyNorman

Once your on minimum wage or above then theres no foul,

could be wrong doh??

SoupyNorman

opr wrote:

Is the whole point not that people should be equal when it comes to pay if you are doing the same job.

Example - A woman can't get paid less for doing the same job as a man .

conditions have to be equal for that rule to apply

e.g. hours worked!

Kêrmêttê

When a prospective employee is being considered for a job, the following factors are taking into account for calculating their salary:
Qualifications
Previous experience
Previous grade / level
Amount of years served at this grade / level

What ever is stated in your contract is what you aggreed to when you signed it and is perfectly legal.

opr

I have been in this company both full time and partime for a long time. When i was full time was getting the higher rate but was lowered when i moved p-t as a set rate applies to all part time staff in my department.

In regards to the below factors.

Qualifications - Better than most working full-time

Previous experience - Much more than most full time

Previous grade / level - Same as full time workers

Amount of years served at this grade / level - More than most full time

With all the above factors taken into consideration why do i still get paid less ?

BTW - not sure if it makes a difference but i haven't signed a contract in years.

Blub2k4

opr wrote:

I have been in this company both full time and partime for a long time. When i was full time was getting the higher rate but was lowered when i moved p-t as a set rate applies to all part time staff in my department.

In regards to the below factors.

Qualifications - Better than most working full-time

Previous experience - Much more than most full time

Previous grade / level - Same as full time workers

Amount of years served at this grade / level - More than most full time

With all the above factors taken into consideration why do i still get paid less ?

BTW - not sure if it makes a difference but i haven't signed a contract in years.

It's called a free market economy, there is no law stating that people doing the same job get the same pay.
If the REASON that a woman were paid less was that she was female then that would be illegal, if she were less qualified then not.
The lesson for you is to negotiate the best terms when starting a job.

opr

I am suprised by the fact most of you seem negative in regards to the situation.
I emailed and explained the sitution to employments rights in Ireland and they came back to say what the company is doing is completely illegal. It all relates to equaily and no one should get paid less for doing the same job.

Wether this relates to Black vs white , Women vs Men or Full time Vs part-time i don't see how it should make a difference ?

Saruman

Not sure myself.... I worked in Gateway Tech years ago.. when it closed down we moved to Clientlogic. Clientlogic then took on more staff to cover the Gateway account and they got paid a LOT less than we did.. we got all kinds of bonuses and stuff that the new people did not. We were on different terms and conditions so im not sure if there is anything wrong with it.

Look at it this way.. maybe they ge paid more because they are giving the company more of their time... It may be the same ammount of work but they are doing more of it and the company probably sees it as an incentive to get people to work full time and not part time.

opr

Saruman wrote:

Not sure myself.... I worked in Gateway Tech years ago.. when it closed down we moved to Clientlogic. Clientlogic then took on more staff to cover the Gateway account and they got paid a LOT less than we did.. we got all kinds of bonuses and stuff that the new people did not. We were on different terms and conditions so im not sure if there is anything wrong with it.

Look at it this way.. maybe they ge paid more because they are giving the company more of their time... It may be the same ammount of work but they are doing more of it and the company probably sees it as an incentive to get people to work full time and not part time.

I can see how that would happen if you are employed by different people. Alot of big compaines will employ full time employee's directly. So lets say in your case you had a gateway contract. The people they then employ to cover the Gateway accounts that got paid alot less .......... were they employed by someone else ??

Cause if they bring in a contractor i can understand getting paid less as you both technically work for different employers even though you are doing the same job ?

landser

opr wrote:

no one should get paid less for doing the same job.

Wether this relates to Black vs white , Women vs Men or Full time Vs part-time i don't see how it should make a difference ?

part time workers are not a class of people pursuant to the equality acts.
it's a contract matter. even full time workeres of similar status can be on different wages to each other.
assuming you're not being discriminated against on the grounds set out in the equality acts, which you don't seem to be. and as long as you've equal access to the other benefits avaiable to the full time workers (holidays pension entitlements) there's no discrimination and it's legal.

there may be a collective agreement in existence that you don't know about betwen the union and the employer regarding rates of pay. check this out

boo4842

This seems like a simple answer.

TALK TO YOUR UNION REP! There is probably a collective agreement governing all unionised employees. So they may be getting paid more for total hours worked / length of service, etc. Full time workers might be considered grade 2A, while part time workers are Grade 2B. Its very unlikely that the company would be doing something illegal, and the union would accept it, as they are supposed to represent all employees.

opr

I am not in work so don't have the reply I got from the employment commissioner in regards to my query. This is in general some of the info i got back from them

The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001, came into operation in Ireland on 20th December 2001.
To ensure that a part-time employee in Ireland cannot be treated less favorably than a comparable full-time employee regarding conditions of employment

"cannot be treated less favorably than a comparable full-time employee " - This means you cannot pay them less.

More info on part time law


Guys i would like to say at this point that i have actually consulted a quailfied lawyer and they believe that we have a very strong case.

Are any of you experts in employment law and know for certain that this is legal.

opr

This seems like a simple answer.

TALK TO YOUR UNION REP! There is probably a collective agreement governing all unionised employees. So they may be getting paid more for total hours worked / length of service, etc. Full time workers might be considered grade 2A, while part time workers are Grade 2B. Its very unlikely that the company would be doing something illegal, and the union would accept it, as they are supposed to represent all employees.

If i was in a situation were the union could be of help i would contact them staright away. Alot of workings in the backround that relate to the company and how the union overlooks things for them. It all very complicated and not going into it.

I don't want to bring it up with them till i am fully sure of the situation.

cajun_tiger

did you sign a contract? if so check out if wage is placed on it. it is not wrong at all in the sence of law. if full timers get payed different its due to contract rather then minimum wage. i've done part time full time and temp time now best paid out of lot is full time worse is part-time you are only intiled to minimum wage and no perks.

landser

opr wrote:

Guys i would like to say at this point that i have actually consulted a quailfied lawyer and they believe that we have a very strong case.

Are any of you experts in employment law and know for certain that this is legal.

you asked a question and you got replies. if you have aready sough the advice of a lawyer and a rights commissioner, why did you bother posting this the thread. sorry, if you don't like the answers posted here.

if the case is so open and shut sue your employer.

by the way read section 9 of the Act.

Kêrmêttê

opr wrote:

Guys i would like to say at this point that i have actually consulted a quailfied lawyer and they believe that we have a very strong case.

Are any of you experts in employment law and know for certain that this is legal.

If you have already discussed this matter with a member of the legal profession why are you asking advice from random strangers on an internet forum? :rolleyes:

Flukey

There is a free booklet you can get on Employment Law which will give you all your answers. You'd probably get it from the Social Welfare office, Dept of trade and enterprise, government publications office, citizens advice or some such places.


Try this site as well: http://www.oasis.gov.ie/

boo4842

I would talk to the union rep before seeking legal advise. The union is "supposed" to represent you, the employee. I am not a qualified solicitor, but I am an accountant and have studied employment law. It would appear on the surface that the part time work act would be valid, but the fact that a union is present complicates the matter to the point that you really can't make general assumptions. The act basically covers "conditions" of "employment" rather than pay.

The point of a union is they basically act as ONE voice for all "unionised" employees. So basically the collective agreement is ONE contract that is applicible to ALL employees of the union whether they like it or not. My brother works at a place where there is a union, but also non-unionised workers. The union workers get almost double what the non-unionised workers do for the same job. This is legal because there is 2 different contracts. It would be like me complaining cause my co-worker is on a higher salary. Just because the contract covers 1 or 50 employees, makes no difference in comparing wages. Just because Paddy got a raise last week for doing the same job as you, doesn't mean you should automatically get a raise.

Again I'm not a solicitor, but it would seem you have enough doubt to talk to the union or at least, get a copy of your contract (or collective agreement)

opr

landser wrote:

you asked a question and you got replies. if you have aready sough the advice of a lawyer and a rights commissioner, why did you bother posting this the thread. sorry, if you don't like the answers posted here.

Not that i don't like the answers given trying to pick holes in them . Doing this because i would say its this kinda stuff i would need to know to argue my point.

Kêrmêtt&#234 wrote:

If you have already discussed this matter with a member of the legal profession why are you asking advice from random strangers on an internet forum? :rolleyes:

Because I thought it would be nice to have the advice of other people and generally you get great advice here.

I thought someone might have been in a similar situation and looked into it further or took it further and wanted to see if their experiences could help me.

Also the guy from the legal profession was not a expert in employment law so he could only give me his educated opinion rather than an answer.

Kêrmêttê

opr wrote:

Originally Posted by Kêrmêttê
If you have already discussed this matter with a member of the legal profession why are you asking advice from random strangers on an internet forum?

Because I thought it would be nice to have the advice of other people and generally you get great advice here.

I thought someone might have been in a similar situation and looked into it further or took it further and wanted to see if their experiences could help me.

Also the guy from the legal profession was not a expert in employment law so he could only give me his educated opinion rather than an answer.

You already consulted a legal professional... this person might not be an expert but he would have some relevant idea on where you stand because he works in the LEGAL PROFESSION (bit of a good indication there).

opr wrote:

Are any of you experts in employment law and know for certain that this is legal.

You asked the question (even though you'd aready gotten professional advice and you got answers. You then decided that those were not good enough because they had conflicted with the professional advice you had already received.
Your replies came from faceless random strangers on the internet. Who know's if any of us are experts in tying our own shoes, let alone employment law?

Go find an employment law expert if you're not happy.

axer

you prob should talk to your union rep (if you are in one) before talking to a solicitor, thats why the union is there so that there arent people individually suing the company you work for independently.

opr

boo4842 wrote:

I would talk to the union rep before seeking legal advise. The union is "supposed" to represent you, the employee. I am not a qualified solicitor, but I am an accountant and have studied employment law. It would appear on the surface that the part time work act would be valid, but the fact that a union is present complicates the matter to the point that you really can't make general assumptions. The act basically covers "conditions" of "employment" rather than pay.

The point of a union is they basically act as ONE voice for all "unionised" employees. So basically the collective agreement is ONE contract that is applicible to ALL employees of the union whether they like it or not. My brother works at a place where there is a union, but also non-unionised workers. The union workers get almost double what the non-unionised workers do for the same job. This is legal because there is 2 different contracts. It would be like me complaining cause my co-worker is on a higher salary. Just because the contract covers 1 or 50 employees, makes no difference in comparing wages. Just because Paddy got a raise last week for doing the same job as you, doesn't mean you should automatically get a raise.

Again I'm not a solicitor, but it would seem you have enough doubt to talk to the union or at least, get a copy of your contract (or collective agreement)

Thanks for the advice. Your brother sounds like he is in kinda the same situation. We have peeple in work who do the same job but on different contracts so i can fully understand that it is legal to pay them more. .... .. . . but in my situation we also have full and part on the same contracts who get paid different and this is why i am looking into it.

Blub2k4

You have an agreement written down somewhere with a figure on it that you have agreed as a monthly payment? What is the problem?

opr

Blub2k4 wrote:

You have an agreement written down somewhere with a figure on it that you have agreed as a monthly payment? What is the problem?

I mean we have the same type of contract in the sense that we have the same employer. Haven't signed an actual contract in years. We were the first group of people to be taken on Part-time in the department i work in and since i moved to that department have never had a contract.

seamus

There's a contract somewhere with your name on it. Legally your employer is required to supply you with a contract. You don't have to have signed it though, so you probably have a sheet of paper somewhere indicating your hours of employment, hourly wage, holiday entitlements and maybe or two other things. That's your contract.

How do you know that everyone is on the same contract? Have you seen everyone's contract?
Yearly wage increases will also stagger the pay scales, since you may be doing the same job as someone else, but if they have two years on you, then they have the benefit of two years' extra annual pay increases over you.

It's a grey area, and no-one here has enough information, except you. You may have moved from a different department where you were getting paid less, and your pay scale never changed. That's legal. You may have joined directly, agreeing to the pay that you're on now. That's legal. There are a whole pile of little things about the scenario that you haven't told us, and if you're serious about suing your employer, you could jeopardise your case by telling us.

If it was me, I wouldn't bother. First and foremost, I would see any company claiming that twice the hours == twice the experience == more pay.

WhiteWashMan

opr wrote:

"cannot be treated less favorably than a comparable full-time employee " - This means you cannot pay them less.

actually, you are completely wrong on this.

it does not mean you cannot pay them less.

it means that part time employees have to have similar holidays, similar notice periods and other benefits of employment that are enjoyed by full time employees.

however, it does not mean that you get paid the same as someone else. no where in any employment legislation does it say that you have to pay people the same amount of money, becuase that would go against your rights to negotiate

its up to you to either agree to the wages offered to you when you are offered a contract, or it is up to you to ask to negotiate. mcdonalds will tell you they wont negotiate, and thats their policy, but it doesnt mean you cant try.
similarly, if you went to a job as president of the world bank and they offered you 25k a year, im sure you would try and negotiate it up to about half a million a year

welcome to a capiatlaism society comrade. if you are unhappy in your work, you are more than free to go and get a job somewhere else.
but you do not have to get the same as anyone else.

Victor

bravestarr082 wrote:

conditions have to be equal for that rule to apply e.g. hours worked!

There is legaslative protection in place for part-time workers, certainly that they should have equal promotion and long service rights and probably other areas.

If the terms for part-time workers discriminate against them and there is a bias in the composition of the part-time against full-time (the prime example being a work place where the full-times are mostly men and the part-timers mostly women), there is prima facie evidence of discrimination.

Trigger! wrote:

I dont think its illegal either as i think the minimum wage applies to full time staff whereas im not sure whether it applies to part time?(can someone correct me if im wrong on this?)

Minimum wage applies to all workers (but there are categories).

opr

Thanks for all the info guys . If all of what you are saying is true why did i get this response ?


Dear XXXX

A part-time worker cannot be treated less favourably than a full time
worker. Please go to the following link for more information,
http://www.entemp.ie/employment/rights/faq.htm#parttime . If you have been
receiving less pay than a full-time worker then you may be able to recoup
any monies owed by taking a case to the Rights Commissioner. Information
on taking a case to the Rights Commissioner is also available by accessing
the above link.

Please do not hesitate to contact this unit if you have any further queries
or require additional information.

Employment Rights Information Unit
tel 01 631 3131
or 1890 201 615 (lo-call if outside 01 area)
www.entemp.ie
e-mail: erinfo@entemp.ie

penexpers

The Act provides that a fixed-term employee may be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable permanent employee where such treatment can be justified on objective grounds.

What is an objective ground for treatment in a less favourable manner?

A ground would be considered as an objective ground for treatment in a less favourable manner (including the renewal of a fixed-term employee's contract for a further fixed term), if it is based on considerations other than the status of the employee as a fixed-term employee and the less favourable treatment is for the purpose of achieving a legitimate objective of the employer and such treatment is necessary for that purpose.