moving to monthly pay

cool007

Hi

need some advice please
my company is moving us to monthly salary pay end of sept....just wondering do they need to make us sign new contract as one we signed is a fortnightly pay and hourly rate?

what legal right do we have to stop this being enforced?

keithclancy

cool007 wrote: »

Hi

need some advice please
my company is moving us to monthly salary pay end of sept....just wondering do they need to make us sign new contract as one we signed is a fortnightly pay and hourly rate?

what legal right do we have to stop this being enforced?

None.

Your employer is doing it to cut costs, be thankful they're not cutting you instead.

Smiley G

if your contract states you are paid fortnightly then yes your employer will need to issue a new contract or an amendment to your existing one.

yes you do have a right to request to remain on the current payment set-up. You should put this in writing stating your reasons... financial DD commitments etc. setup due to your current pay structure should help with your argument.

most companies would comply with this type of request.

I worked in a company where staff were paid weekly, but two married guys requested monthly pay to coincide with their mortgage payments and this was done for them.

Speak with your HR department and they will assist you. If the company is too small for an HR depo then go to citizens Advice and they should advise you on how to proceed.

cool007

just had meeting with payroll and was told TUFF.....your moving to monthly and the company does not have to get you to sign any new contracts

also means in sept we get paid for 19 days that has to do us a month

this cant be legal

MagicMarker

What's the problem? Monthly is much much better imo.

Eoin

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's the problem? Monthly is much much better imo.

I prefer fortnightly - you don't get those horrible 5 week months to deal with!

If your salary structure (not just the payment schedule) is being changed, it's a bit more serious though. As comes up several times here, there seems to be a difference between contract and employment law. Employment law suggests that they can make these changes, but contract law says that both parties must agree. That's off e top of my head though, so not 100% sure about that.

daigo75

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's the problem? Monthly is much much better imo.

I'm not an expert, but, with hourly pay, if you work 10 hours you get paid 10, 50 hours and you get paid 50 (and, maybe, overtime rates too). With monthly pay you usually get a fixed amount each calendar month, regardless the hours worked (i.e. overtime is unpaid). This becomes an advantage when you can manage the hours yourself, but I'm afraid this is not the case for the Op.

GaylaBells02

favorable with daigo

Dublin_Gunner

daigo75 wrote: »

I'm not an expert, but, with hourly pay, if you work 10 hours you get paid 10, 50 hours and you get paid 50 (and, maybe, overtime rates too). With monthly pay you usually get a fixed amount each calendar month, regardless the hours worked (i.e. overtime is unpaid). This becomes an advantage when you can manage the hours yourself, but I'm afraid this is not the case for the Op.

There is nothing to suggest that being paid monthly means you're on a salary rather than hourly rate.

Sure, most people paid monthly are on salary, but there's I see no problem in being on an hourly rate, but getting paid by the month. CUts down on admin costs is why I'd say they're doing it.

daigo75

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that being paid monthly means you're on a salary rather than hourly rate.

Well, Op wrote "we're moving to monthly salary pay end of sept", so I assumed it would actually be a salary.

cool007

we just got FnQ's but does anyone else think company is avoid answering questions
Q47 When will there be an attempt to achieve mutual agreement on this change as stated in contracts?
A. We will commit to going through a comprehensive consultation process with all employees. We will support all employees in any way possible throughout the consultation and the transition.
Q51 If employees advise that they are not accepting the change and refuse to go monthly, what will happen?
A We are committed to discussing individuals circumstances throughout the consultation process. We will consult with all employees through your local LEF, payroll workshops and we endeavour to communicate with all on a regular basis throughout the consultation. We commit to providing the support that employees need to ensure the change has a minimum impact to their financial commitments. We can assure that this change will have no financial implication in relation to Taxes/PRSI or Social Charges

Dublin_Gunner

daigo75 wrote: »

Well, Op wrote "we're moving to monthly salary pay end of sept", so I assumed it would actually be a salary.

I had assumed his problem was with the time scale of being paid, rather than the amount being paid (I admit I completely missed the word 'salary' in that sentence!).

If its a case that they are completely changing the terms of employment they cannot do that without having a new contract signed by the employees.

If there are any major issues with the employees agreeing to this change, I'd advise to get in contact with the LRC / Rights Commissioner.

This clearly falls under the Payment of Wages act.

Dublin_Gunner

Why does that doc basically repeat the same things over and over?

Also, who is this mysterious poster with 1 post, providing this document?

cool007

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Why does that doc basically repeat the same things over and over?

Also, who is this mysterious poster with 1 post, providing this document?

because i serious think they are trying to fob us off....

dunno who posted it....i just wanted advice on the 2 questions i posted.

has anyone advice on what we can do here????

I have mail NERA for help to

Dublin_Gunner

cool007 wrote: »

because i serious think they are trying to fob us off....

dunno who posted it....i just wanted advice on the 2 questions i posted.

has anyone advice on what we can do here????

I have mail NERA for help to

They're not trying to fob you off, but move to a new pay structure.

Looking at it, it really makes little difference only you'll be getting paid once, not twice a month.

Is this a huge issue for the employees? Just because you may 'prefer' something else, doesn't make this solution wrong. They seem to have given ample time to adjust, or make changes to bills etc if you need to.

What exactly is the issue - merely the fact they're 'changing' something? Sounds a lot like a Union moan tbh.

Can you provide more details as to why there is such uproar over this, when it makes no financial difference to the employees, other than the fact you may have to manage your money a little better?

cool007

its not a moan...just wanting to know if we are entitled to new written contracts by law because of the change of our orginal one

Dublin_Gunner

cool007 wrote: »

its not a moan...just wanting to know if we are entitled to new written contracts by law because of the change of our orginal one

AFAIK you would be entitled to a new contract. Or at least an amended one with the payment details changed.

Would it really make any difference? Nope.

Get onto NERA or lrc.ie and see what they say, or indeed contact a solicitor and ask.

cool007

bump

Bandana boy

Do not believe you need a new contract for this change to be implemented

on a side note ,Looks like your company is being very fair on this change with regards to information and timeline.

Irish_Elect_Eng

The poster was probably nervous about the fact that he was posting an internal company document, which is probably a disciplinary offence in most companies.

Besides from the document it is easy to identify the company in question.

Irish_Elect_Eng

I just read the FAQ and it seems to me that this is a well though out change by management to save money as part of a larger project. I tend to agree with the poster above, what exactly is the issue? It does sound like a union moan.

travnett

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

The poster was probably nervous about the fact that he was posting an internal company document, which is probably a disciplinary offence in most companies.

Besides from the document it is easy to identify the company in question.

Yep especially when the name of the company is mentioned in one or two of the FAq's! :rolleyes: the OP or that other poster should think about removing this document!