nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Working week changing a little

TippCashel

Hi all

I started in the company I'm currently with on 20th March 2018.

My working week has always been 40 hours (including lunch of 30 mins to be taken at any time).

So for easy purposes, the hours were 6am to 2pm and 10am to 6pm, depending on the day.

We've been through a couple of managers/TLs in that time and they were the ones that set the schedules.

Today I received an email from my newest Manager (based in the US) that my day would now be 8.5 hours (including an unpaid lunch break).

So it'll be 6am to 2:30pm and 10am to 6:30pm

Original contract below:

Would I have a right to be miffed here with the change out of the blue? This is the third manager I've had within my time here, and none have said this at all.

Would I have any right to complain/refuse?

The company is going through a transition after purchasing another one, and in a couple of weeks I'll actually only be a team-of-one here in Ireland (and almost certainly will be done away with eventually), so (while maybe being a bit paranoid), they've really started pushing my buttons recently, and this is just another thing now.

Email today:

I want to make it clear that Support working hours in 'not-naming-city' should be 8 ½ hrs in the office with a ½ hour meal within the first 5 working hours. I understand the queue may be unattended for a half hour during your lunch. Please escalate any customer issues as a result directly to me. You have the flexibility to begin your shift a half hour earlier or a half hour later.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lux23

So essentially, you were working 37.5 hours, but now its a 40 hour week? Your contract says 40 hours, so although I would be miffed I can't see how you can complain because it seems the arrangement you had was casual.

Deagol

Don't forget you will (should) be paid for the extra 2.5 hours a week. My company works a 37.5hr week and I'd be happier if they went to 40 for the extra dosh

TippCashel wrote: »

Hi all

I started in the company I'm currently with on 20th March 2018.

My working week has always been 40 hours (including lunch of 30 mins to be taken at any time).

So for easy purposes, the hours were 6am to 2pm and 10am to 6pm, depending on the day.

We've been through a couple of managers/TLs in that time and they were the ones that set the schedules.

Today I received an email from my newest Manager (based in the US) that my day would now be 8.5 hours (including an unpaid lunch break).

So it'll be 6am to 2:30pm and 10am to 6:30pm

Original contract below:

Would I have a right to be miffed here with the change out of the blue? This is the third manager I've had within my time here, and none have said this at all.

Would I have any right to complain/refuse?

The company is going through a transition after purchasing another one, and in a couple of weeks I'll actually only be a team-of-one here in Ireland (and almost certainly will be done away with eventually), so (while maybe being a bit paranoid), they've really started pushing my buttons recently, and this is just another thing now.

Email today:

TippCashel

Lux23 wrote: »

So essentially, you were working 37.5 hours, but now its a 40 hour week? Your contract says 40 hours, so although I would be miffed I can't see how you can complain because it seems the arrangement you had was casual.

Thanks - I suppose it's the fact that I've been doing the same for 18 months now and not one manager has said a thing. In fact, I remember (although it's not written down) a previous TL stating at the time in a nice way to 'not take the mick with the lunch breaks since they're paid'.

Didn't seem casual to me. The managers set our schedules etc. Not one time was the extra 2.5 hours mentioned.

Deagol wrote: »

Don't forget you will (should) be paid for the extra 2.5 hours a week. My company works a 37.5hr week and I'd be happier if they went to 40 for the extra dosh

I doubt they'd budge on that with the wording of the contract, but I could try I suppose.

It was intended in the past that it was a 40 hour working week which included lunch.

Deagol

Ah, you mean you've been getting a free lunch? Nice.

I'd personally say nothing and be thankful for the time you did get the free lunch!
You could argue precedent but tbh, is it really worth it if you think you are gone soon anyway? Might just prompt them to hurry it along.

[Deleted User]

So you have been overpaid for 18 months, 220 hours or the equivalent of 6 weeks. Definitely bring this to their attention.

Irishder

This is a 2 shift pattern 6-2 and 2-10 anywhere i worked on shift, lunch break was paid.

I would be miffed if i was the op.

Status Quo from day one was for a paid lunch break.

OP I presume you dont have a union? I would respond with a professional email outlining your grievance and copy HR on it.

TippCashel

Dav010 wrote: »

So you have been overpaid for 18 months, 220 hours or the equivalent of 6 weeks. Definitely bring this to their attention.

I doubt it will come to this; for the simple fact that the company surely cannot turn around and say 'oops', because the contract doesn't say either explicitly. It has been 18 months of having a paid lunch break; so surely this is 'expected' now?

Irishder wrote: »

This is a 2 shift pattern 6-2 and 2-10 anywhere i worked on shift, lunch break was paid.

I would be miffed if i was the op.

Status Quo from day one was for a paid lunch break.

OP I presume you dont have a union? I would respond with a professional email outlining your grievance and copy HR on it.

This would be my argument - From day one it has been an 8 hour day including a paid lunch break of 30 mins in it. Not once has my hours ever been brought up before. I remember a previous TL saying (in a nice way when we started), to not take the mick with the lunch breaks since they're paid for.

The 6am to 2pm shift has always been there and in the past the other shift was 12pm to 8pm which is now changed to 10am to 6pm.

It's how to actually write it on a grievance email is my problem. I don't think there's a way to write it without coming across as massively defensive/snotty about it.

No union I'm afraid.

[Deleted User]

TippCashel wrote: »

I doubt it will come to this; for the simple fact that the company surely cannot turn around and say 'oops', because the contract doesn't say either explicitly. It has been 18 months of having a paid lunch break; so surely this is 'expected' now?

This would be my argument - From day one it has been an 8 hour day including a paid lunch break of 30 mins in it. Not once has my hours ever been brought up before. I remember a previous TL saying (in a nice way when we started), to not take the mick with the lunch breaks since they're paid for.

The 6am to 2pm shift has always been there and in the past the other shift was 12pm to 8pm which is now changed to 10am to 6pm.

It's how to actually write it on a grievance email is my problem. I don't think there's a way to write it without coming across as massively defensive/snotty about it.

No union I'm afraid.

You are being asked to work the hours you agreed to in your contract, or, you have been paid in error for your lunch break since you started, why on earth would you be writing a grievance email? You understand that a company is entitled to recover overpayments made in error.

TippCashel

Dav010 wrote: »

You are being asked to work the hours you agreed to in your contract, or, you have been paid in error for your lunch break since you started, why on earth would you be writing a grievance email?

Because from the get-go it was understood (among previously three colleagues, now down to one, soon to be just myself) that it included a paid lunch break in the daily hours)

Yeh, maybe I'm being way out of line, but I think the company is in poor jest here.

[Deleted User]

TippCashel wrote: »

Because from the get-go it was understood (among previously three colleagues, now down to one, soon to be just myself) that it included a paid lunch break in the daily hours)

Yeh, maybe I'm being way out of line, but I think the company is in poor jest here.

From the get go your contract outlines the hours you work and the rate of pay, unless your contract states that breaks are paid, they are unpaid. So you are being paid to work for 40 hours even though you are only working 37.5, and now you are unhappy that you actually have to work 40hrs?

TippCashel

Dav010 wrote: »

From the get go your contract outlines the hours you work and the rate of pay, unless your contract states that breaks are paid, they are unpaid. So you are being paid to work for 40 hours even though you are only working 37.5, and now you are unhappy that you actually have to work 40hrs?

Of course I'm unhappy about the change, man. I've been doing these hours for 18 months now, so I'm used to them and I've built my week around them.

Again, three different managers have been in charge in this time and not one mentioned it, so I'm sure you can at least understand how I'm a bit taken aback.

[Deleted User]

TippCashel wrote: »

Of course I'm unhappy about the change, man. I've been doing these hours for 18 months now, so I'm used to them and I've built my week around them.

Again, three different managers have been in charge in this time and not one mentioned it, so I'm sure you can at least understand how I'm a bit taken aback.

I would share your outrage if you were being asked to work an additional 2.5 hours a week extra for no pay, but they are telling you that they want you to work the hours they are paying you to work.

BrokenArrows

Op, it's annoying but there is nothing you can do about it.
The new manager is fixing the mistakes of the old managers.

Augme

As above basically. I'd be pissed off my gravy train has ended but that's the height of it. You haven't a legal leg to stand here unfortunately.

TippCashel

Thanks all for the feedback; understood that it's tough luck.

Irishder

Ill say it again, the norm in industry is that lunch breaks are paid for people on shift. 6-2 and 2-10 are industry norms for shifts. i have worked 8 hour and 12 hour shifts previously and breaks were paid.

Op you could point this out to the new manager, are they based in ireland? if not they may need to be educated in common practice.

irelandrover

Irishder wrote: »

Ill say it again, the norm in industry is that lunch breaks are paid for people on shift. 6-2 and 2-10 are industry norms for shifts. i have worked 8 hour and 12 hour shifts previously and breaks were paid.

Op you could point this out to the new manager, are they based in ireland? if not they may need to be educated in common practice.

Where i worked breaks weren't paid. And it was on purpose so that there would be an overlap between shifts for a handover meeting.

So shift was 07:00-15:30, 15:00 - 23:30 and 23:00 - 07:30.

TippCashel

Irishder wrote: »

Ill say it again, the norm in industry is that lunch breaks are paid for people on shift. 6-2 and 2-10 are industry norms for shifts. i have worked 8 hour and 12 hour shifts previously and breaks were paid.

Op you could point this out to the new manager, are they based in ireland? if not they may need to be educated in common practice.

This is what I thought too to be honest, but have been put off it now!

He's based in Chicago - Which has been an issue previously for a couple of other things too unfortunately.

kennethsmyth

Op, regardless of contract (which is vague does not mention lunchbreaks part of 40 hours or not). You now have implied terms as has been getting paid and working for the last 18/24 months.

You need to point this out to your american manager and before they change to extra half hour end of shift, if they don't come to an agreement with you your shift ends at previous timings - put this in writing so manager has been put on notice as they may try to use disciplinary if you finish shift at original time. By putting them on notice with writing they can still try to use disciplinary but wrc etc. would look very badly on company that changed implied terms and was notified about this issue but pushed ahead without agreement anyway.

H3llR4iser

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Op, regardless of contract (which is vague does not mention lunchbreaks part of 40 hours or not). You now have implied terms as has been getting paid and working for the last 18/24 months.

This - the contract doesn't mention lunch, so technically speaking the 40 hours should be "net" in my view; for example 9.00-17.30 when taking a 30 minutes break.

The only comeback would be the implied arrangement existing around the lunch break - I've seen this "murky" situation in every company I worked for in Ireland: there tends not to be any mention of a lunch break, so what happens is that HR and/or line managers set their own policies, which often leads to abuses and misinterpretations. I really wish more contracts made it clear, regardless of the direction they go.