Can my manager send me home early from a shift even I don’t want to leave

hasdanta

Basically, due to the lockdown of Laois/Kildare/Offaly our shop has been dead and we’ve too many staff in. My manager asked did anyone want to go home, we all said no as we wanted the money. She then came to us saying that she was going to have to send one of us home whether we liked it or not. Nobody agreed to leave so she cut someone’s shift short, despite them being rostered in for another 3 hours.

Is this allowed? We’re all on 6 hour contracts and usually work around 20 hours plus each, so is she allowed to do this since we’re getting enough ours per our contracts? Or is it just not allowed at all?

hasdanta

hasdanta wrote: »

Basically, due to the lockdown of Laois/Kildare/Offaly our shop has been dead and we’ve too many staff in. My manager asked did anyone want to go home, we all said no as we wanted the money. She then came to us saying that she was going to have to send one of us home whether we liked it or not. Nobody agreed to leave so she cut someone’s shift short, despite them being rostered in for another 3 hours.

Is this allowed? We’re all on 6 hour contracts and usually work around 20 hours plus each, so is she allowed to do this since we’re getting enough ours per our contracts? Or is it just not allowed at all?

Just to add, our manager on the shift yesterday give us the OPTION to leave, but was happy to let us stay if we said we wanted the extra hours. She always presented it as an option to us, but never forced us to go home to us being rostered in even though it was quiet

antix80

Not really. You are entitled to know the end time of your shift.

There are also rules on pay if you're called for work but sent home - some of which are outlined here:
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/contracts_of_employment/contracts_without_specific_working_hours_zero_hours_contracts.html

GalwayGrrrrrl

There are two things to consider here. The legal
Requirement to know shift times in advance and the practical, sensible options to keep the business going. If the shop owner goes bankrupt none of you will have a job so maybe some flexibility here would be wise. Maybe take turns to go early?

Strumms

Boss is a joke shop of an individual. They should at this stage have scripted projection of the downturn.

That being the case if for example they have 4 employees doing a 40 hour week, they could reduce the hours say to 36 each, stagger the shifts... taking 16 hours out of the business per week, if they pay 14 euros an hour, that’s, around a saving of just shy of 900 per month, no costs involved to rehire, train etc.

OMM 0000

GalwayGrrrrrl wrote: »

the practical, sensible options to keep the business going. If the shop owner goes bankrupt none of you will have a job so maybe some flexibility here would be wise. Maybe take turns to go early?

I agree with this.

Many (most?) businesses are not cash rich, so paying salaries is never completely easy.

There is a real chance this shop is struggling big time, has cash flow problems, and is trying to keep its head above water. I would think this is more likely than less likely.

I think you should all have a sit down with the boss to see what can be done to help keep your jobs and keep the shop open.

If it means anything, I took a 50% pay cut, and so did my employees, so our company can survive the sales obliteration we have faced over the past 6 months.

Leroy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I agree with this.

Many (most?) businesses are not cash rich, so paying salaries is never completely easy.

There is a real chance this shop is struggling big time, has cash flow problems, and is trying to keep its head above water. I would think this is more likely than less likely.

I think you should all have a sit down with the boss to see what can be done to help keep your jobs and keep the shop open.

If it means anything, I took a 50% pay cut, and so did my employees, so our company can survive the sales obliteration we have faced over the past 6 months.

Completey misses the point.

Those are all perfectly fine options, which the manager could have discussed with the staff. Instead they simply picked one person, apparently at random, to take the hit for everyone.

1st question they need to answer, and have proof for, is why they chose you. Was it random, was it based on something else.

Second, why not instigate a wage cut for everyone?

What else has the business done to protect itself? Has it taken TWSS payments? Is it doing anything with rent rates etc?

It should not fall on the shoulders of the lowest paid to protect the company.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be effected or play a part, but communication is the key. You want everyone to work together then involve them.

OMM 0000

Leroy42 wrote: »

Completey misses the point.

Those are all perfectly fine options, which the manager could have discussed with the staff. Instead they simply picked one person, apparently at random, to take the hit for everyone.

1st question they need to answer, and have proof for, is why they chose you. Was it random, was it based on something else.

Second, why not instigate a wage cut for everyone?

What else has the business done to protect itself? Has it taken TWSS payments? Is it doing anything with rent rates etc?

It should not fall on the shoulders of the lowest paid to protect the company.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be effected or play a part, but communication is the key. You want everyone to work together then involve them.

It is very unreasonable to say a business might be struggling financially during this crisis and there needs to be a staff meeting about it to clear up the current messiness "completely misses the point".

Leroy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It is very unreasonable to say a business might be struggling financially during this crisis and there needs to be a staff meeting about it to clear up the current messiness "completely misses the point".

Agreed, my post was badly written.

I wasn't implying that sitting down and discussing was missing the point, I made that very point myself, only that it missed the point of what happened in this particular instance and so wasn't dealing with the issue raised.

Strumms

I had a boss in a job about 10 years ago. A reasonably fair individual. We had a very busy week until Friday afternoon from about 3.00pm to 5.00pm things generally died a death. Us as a team would be just looking for ‘busy’ work, cleaning up, emails, restocking photocopier with paper, stationary orders etc, surfing the Internet just to ‘be there’... because the ‘eye’ was on us in the main from a neighboring department and a manager who liked the idea of appropriating any of our spare time to give his lazy shower a dig out but of course that never worked two ways.

After a while our boss he said... “ok going forward, I’m going to send one of you home early on Friday at 4pm, it will be rotated, but you WILL be paid until 5pm and we always were. I asked him how this was ok, his answer was.. I can’t recall verbatim but along the lines of... “ you are here, available and willing to finish your shîft, your company cannot provide you with work, they have failed to have work for you so you can sit here, be paid for looking at sky-sports dot com or go home and be paid to do something worthwhile like pick up your kids, help your other half with dinner or look at sky sports in the comfort of your own living room”.

In turn the employees always appreciating that, anytime he’d need a little extra like OT or whatever favor ... never had to be asked twice

We clocked out at 4, paid till 5.