35 hour contract but told you have to work 38

[vinny]

A bit of a similar dilemma to a previous post. One of our colleagues who has a 35 hour contract has been put on a full time duty (38 hours) this week to cover annual leave. He has said he only wants to work his 35 hours because he has a new baby.
The manager has been putting him under extreme pressure telling him that because he is on a 38 hour duty this week he MUST do 38 hours and anything less would basically be a conduct code.
We've told him that this can't be right and management can't make you work overtime. He is getting the union involved but I just wanted to ask if anyone out there knows where he stands and if there is any legislation/Royal mail policy I can quote/point him towards to back up his case. He was quite upset and feeling pretty much bullied by the manager. Thanks in advance.

[Acca Dacca]

............. I would say they should apply pressure to sort the holiday pay issue too, but I've given up hope on that.

It's in the legal system ie it's gone to a Tribunal Court, so anything CWU say or do is unlikely to have any beneficial effect. We're all cheesed off
that it's taking so long but that's the system we've got and of course Covid hasn't helped in progression of the issue through the court.

It completely contradicts the seniority rule so I cannot see how it could be brought in the way people think it could be

If a PT postman A with 15 years service gets offered no OT and a PT postman B with 2 years service gets offered a lot - by the proposed rule the postman with 2 years service who the manager has given a lot of OT to would get better holiday/sick pay than postman A having been offered a contract with more hours ahead of postman A.

But contracts are offered based on length of service first so what it would show is that there is SCOPE for a FT contract to be given out - however the person GETTING the contract wouldnt be the person who had done all the OT

It'd be the PT with most seniority and then down the list if rejected

Also to note that OT done isnt necessarily done by the only people willing - it is often handed out to the same people the manager favours so some, with more seniority, never actually get the chance to 'reject or accept' the OT

My guess is, if anything is brought in, it will be that if managers will need to give out more increased hour contracts - it just wont be the people who had done the OT that justified it that get them necessarily

Expect a lot of unhappy people if that happened

[crimson king]

They tried this with me when I first moved up to 35 hours.

"Come in at the same time as the 38 hours and claim three hours overtime each week."

"No thanks."

"But that's what all the other 35 hour contracts are doing. Why can't you?"

"If you want me to do 38 hours just give me a 38 hour contract, so I don't have to chase the docket and come to see you every week about missing overtime."

"We can't do that, there aren't any 38 hour contracts anymore."

"And you've just answered your own question..."

Had this conversation twice before they gave up. I still get the look of disdain though when I stroll in at my correct starting time and, also, comments from colleagues...mostly, it has to be said, from 32 and 35 hour contracts who come in at the same time as 38 hours.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I just can't stand RM's continual attitude of trying to do everything on the cheap and expecting us to make up the shortfall.

[Murdoch]

............. I would say they should apply pressure to sort the holiday pay issue too, but I've given up hope on that.

It's in the legal system ie it's gone to a Tribunal Court, so anything CWU say or do is unlikely to have any beneficial effect. We're all cheesed off
that it's taking so long but that's the system we've got and of course Covid hasn't helped in progression of the issue through the court.

It completely contradicts the seniority rule so I cannot see how it could be brought in the way people think it could be

If a PT postman A with 15 years service gets offered no OT and a PT postman B with 2 years service gets offered a lot - by the proposed rule the postman with 2 years service who the manager has given a lot of OT to would get better holiday/sick pay than postman A having been offered a contract with more hours ahead of postman A.

But contracts are offered based on length of service first so what it would show is that there is SCOPE for a FT contract to be given out - however the person GETTING the contract wouldnt be the person who had done all the OT

It'd be the PT with most seniority and then down the list if rejected

Also to note that OT done isnt necessarily done by the only people willing - it is often handed out to the same people the manager favours so some, with more seniority, never actually get the chance to 'reject or accept' the OT

My guess is, if anything is brought in, it will be that if managers will need to give out more increased hour contracts - it just wont be the people who had done the OT that justified it that get them necessarily

Expect a lot of unhappy people if that happened

I'm sure there was a tribunal last year that concluded that "regular voluntary overtime" should be included in holiday calculations. I meant apply pressure on RM to abide by that ruling. But yeah sure, it'll have to work it's way through the courts some more, and you can't expect RM to act on goodwill (hence my "I give up hope on that" comment).

IIRC the ruling simply stated that if you regularly work overtime, for example you're contracted for 25 but always work 38 hours. Then those hours must be factored in to the calculation on holiday pay. Regardless of how it plays out in practice at Royal Mail. Holiday pay paid @ equivalent to hours worked, is (in my opinion) the only fair way to proceed. Managers giving out increased contracts based more in line with hours worked, would also be a bonus.

[k979aaa]

Thing is with a temporary contract they can refuse to offer you a new one and as far as I know these new contracts have a clause in them best thing is read your whole contract if it says you must work extra hours do it but it will be standard rate till after 38 hours. This is why the next pay deal is a big deal with the new parcel machines and other automation and data hours capture and efficiency savings RM want. We need a good deal for all part time / full time as will ever be the case what make me and RM on here laugh is we cannot do the job as it on 38 hour's, It is not your job to staff the office let the managers worry about that they could always make staff up to full time if they wish to do so!