Break Entitlements

august2016

Hi,

I work in a place where the staff are on different contracts depending on when you were hired, newer staff (hired in the past year) have a different contract because they were hired by a new manager. In the older contracts staff are paid for an hour break if they work 8 hours, whereas the newer staff are not paid for their hour break.
Because of this the manager gives the newer staff 8 hour shifts all the time but the older staff only get 7 and a half hour shifts or worse again 7 hours and 45 minutes shifts. When you work either of these shifts, you're only entitled to a half hour break. I'm wondering is this legal? Is it not discrimination against the older staff simply because we get paid for our hour breaks? So to save money for the company, we never get these hour breaks. Its extremely frustrating having to work for 7 hours and 45 minutes and only getting a half hour break when if we just worked 15 minutes longer we would have a full hour break, not to mention very tiring!
If anyone has any insight on this it would be much appreciated!

noel100

If you are not happy look for a new job.
Plenty of jobs out there.

Neon_Lights

Have a conversation with your manager about this and ask can you sign a new contract

august2016

I have tried speaking about it but am constantly fobbed off. Not long ago I was almost forced into signing a new contract and told if I didn't I would have been demoted. The newer contracts are not good and I have a feeling, barely legal.

evolving_doors

Are you in a union, if not maybe just ring a union anyway to enquire (impact maybe!). Sometimes they give advice to non union members or can be good about referring you on to somewhere else.

august2016

I am with SIPTU who have been thoroughly unhelpful. Our representative promised to help out and we have not heard anything from him for weeks since.

mahamageehad

august2016 wrote: »

I have tried speaking about it but am constantly fobbed off. Not long ago I was almost forced into signing a new contract and told if I didn't I would have been demoted. The newer contracts are not good and I have a feeling, barely legal.

Are you happy to sign a new contract where you don't get paid for lunch? If so, I think the bosses would probably be open to discussing it. If your complaint here is that you want to be paid for lunch just because that's how it was, I think you might be flat outta luck. It sounds like management have decided to phase out paying for lunch, and in many pay-by-hour jobs this is completely normal. There is no legal requirement to be paid for lunch, there is only a requirement to ensure you get the legally mandated amount of breaks. What they're doing here is a bit cheeky, but not illegal. I think you need to decide if it's a deal breaker for you, as it sounds like a like it or lump it situation based on your current posts.

GalwayGrrrrrl

Most workplaces don't pay you for your hour break. If it's the length of break you are concerned about maybe ask if you can take an (unpaid) hour break instead of the half hour.
Go back to your union rep again - maybe with a group of employees in same position. This is exactly the type of thing you pay your Union fees for.

ted1

august2016 wrote: »

I have tried speaking about it but am constantly fobbed off. Not long ago I was almost forced into signing a new contract and told if I didn't I would have been demoted. The newer contracts are not good and I have a feeling, barely legal.

If you were to leave you may have a constructive dismissal case

livedadream

ted1 wrote: »

If you were to leave you may have a constructive dismissal case

not a hope, as long as OP is working their contracted hours there is no breach of the contract.

the employer is being smart in regards to scheduling thats all. nothing illegal here.

ted1

livedadream wrote: »

not a hope, as long as OP is working their contracted hours there is no breach of the contract.

the employer is being smart in regards to scheduling thats all. nothing illegal here.

What about the demotion for not signing a new contract ?

Get Real

This isn't illegal op unfortunately for you. However, you're still in a better position. You work 7 hours 45 mins a day and get paid for same. The newer staff work 8 hours and get paid for 7. You're working less hours than them, and getting paid more.

I know its not as good as it was, getting paid the full hour like before. But paid breaks are gone in alot of jobs since the blip we had.

I could say change your career etc or move to a more generous company but I realise thats not always reallistic. It depends on home life, flexibility, personal preferences and motivation. But compare it to a similar job that you're in now, is it better elsewhere? If not, and you don't have the option of moving to a different background at the moment, I'd stay put

livedadream

ted1 wrote: »

What about the demotion for not signing a new contract ?

OP wasnt demoted.

where did they say there were? they said their hours were reduced by 4-5 a week. ie the lunch break they were being paid for.


after the recession loads of compaines realised there were being a bit to generous, so new staff that were hired were given new contracts, in regards to old staff and a quiet life they were left alone.

OP is being paid more than new staff, just not getting paid for their hour long break which is super rare in ireland these days.

would you feel the same if the new staff were complaining about being paid less and working longer hours? lolz

ted1

livedadream wrote: »

OP wasnt demoted.

where did they say there were?

The OP said. " Not long ago I was almost forced into signing a new contract and told if I didn't I would have been demoted. The newer contracts are not good and I have a feeling, barely legal."

Smondie

ted1 wrote: »

The OP said. " Not long ago I was almost forced into signing a new contract and told if I didn't I would have been demoted. The newer contracts are not good and I have a feeling, barely legal."

From my reading of the op they are still on the old contract. So the above was an empty threat because they didn't sign and weren't demoted.

It all sounds legit to me.

evolving_doors

august2016 wrote: »

I am with SIPTU who have been thoroughly unhelpful. Our representative promised to help out and we have not heard anything from him for weeks since.

Ring head office.