Backdated pay for Angard

[Bazza01]

Latest from Angard is 'near future' for the payout. Your guess is as good as mine how long that means. Why they can't give at least a provisional date for doing it is beyond me.

If I had to guess I would say the end of August I am in no doubt the tribunal loss is the reason for the delay which I think they are going to have to compensate us for ?.

Whatever the reason this is unacceptable , at the very least Angard should inform you of the progress at each step , it is 3 months since RM staff received their back-dated pay , at the end off August this will then be over 4 months , why ?.

As I said I think its the tribunal loss that they are trying to work out how to deal with as it could and hopefully will cost them a substantial amount of money. But you are right they should keep people up to date there is no reason why the backdated money could not be paid as that is straight forward. The break issue is a problem of their own making trying to bend the rules to avoid paying what they should ofAngard course will say that it was an oversight which is complete bollocks either way they should write to everyone involved explaining what is happening.

[Lockardian]

Finally it’s happening!!

We are writing to tell you that we will be paying you the 5% increase in basic pay that Royal Mail Group negotiated with the CWU.

Initially this will be paid to you as back pay, with the first back pay for eligible workers being paid on Friday 3rd August 2018 and covering the period from 1st or 2nd October 2017 (dependent on role) through to the 1st July 2018. There will be further back pay payments in August and September to cover the period from 2nd July to 2nd September.

In early September, the pay rates will be amended to reflect the 5% increase and there will be a further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency.

There will be a further communication shortly to explain these changes.

[Bazza01]

Finally it’s happening!!

We are writing to tell you that we will be paying you the 5% increase in basic pay that Royal Mail Group negotiated with the CWU.

Initially this will be paid to you as back pay, with the first back pay for eligible workers being paid on Friday 3rd August 2018 and covering the period from 1st or 2nd October 2017 (dependent on role) through to the 1st July 2018. There will be further back pay payments in August and September to cover the period from 2nd July to 2nd September.

In early September, the pay rates will be amended to reflect the 5% increase and there will be a further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency.

There will be a further communication shortly to explain these changes.

I think the 5% includes any shift allowance as far as I can remember from the last time this happened. The next email will be interesting regarding the breaks looking forward to reading that.

[nothingatthemoment]

Finally it’s happening!!

In early September, the pay rates will be amended to reflect the 5% increase and there will be a further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency.

There will be a further communication shortly to explain these changes.

As said in previous post will be interesting to see the next round of communication from Angard , although in mentions "compensated " for meal breaks and holiday pay , it doesn't actually say there will be any back pay , surely they will have back-date these deductions also ?

[Lockardian]

I presume the easiest way for us to check their figures are correct are to add up the gross pay for shifts between 1 Oct 17 and 1 July 18 (normally this will be gross pay on payslips except for weeks holiday has been taken or paid). So the (gross) back pay amount we get this Friday should be 5% of this total? Hourly rates shouldn’t matter as it’s 5% regardless?

Or maybe it’s not that simple.

[rogersh]

Finally it’s happening!!

In early September, the pay rates will be amended to reflect the 5% increase and there will be a further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency.

There will be a further communication shortly to explain these changes.

As said in previous post will be interesting to see the next round of communication from Angard , although in mentions "compensated " for meal breaks and holiday pay , it doesn't actually say there will be any back pay , surely they will have back-date these deductions also ?

"further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency."
As I read it, a change from the way AWR angardees are compensated for meal breaks & holiday pay at present, following the Tribunal ruling, I assume.

Up till now the higher hourly rate compensated for the disparity with RM employees. I don't see where back pay (surely they will have back-date these deductions also ?) come into the equation.

[Bazza01]

Finally it’s happening!!

In early September, the pay rates will be amended to reflect the 5% increase and there will be a further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency.

There will be a further communication shortly to explain these changes.

As said in previous post will be interesting to see the next round of communication from Angard , although in mentions "compensated " for meal breaks and holiday pay , it doesn't actually say there will be any back pay , surely they will have back-date these deductions also ?

"further change in the manner that you are compensated for your meal breaks and holiday pay to give greater transparency."
As I read it, a change from the way AWR angardees are compensated for meal breaks & holiday pay at present, following the Tribunal ruling, I assume.

Up till now the higher hourly rate compensated for the disparity with RM employees. I don't see where back pay (surely they will have back-date these deductions also ?) come into the equation.

Your assuming of course that the enhanced rate did cover the 30 minutes that Angard staff were not paid for ? without knowing what the exact rate is for rm staff working a standard 8 hour NIGHT shift I do not know.

[rogersh]

CWU represented grades in Royal Mail rates differ. Delivery/Logistics also National/ inner/outer London
Where I work AWR qualified Angard workers are paid a higher hourly rate.

In 2013 I received this reply from Angard.
"The calculation of 12.07% is, as you have correctly stated, based on the
statutory minimum. As this calculation is built into our software for all
workers across Angard we are unable to change this when you qualify for
AWR. Because of this, your AWR rate is worked out slightly higher than
permanent workers at Royal Mail, to pay you in lieu for the extra holiday
pay that you are now owed."

No mention of meal breaks!

[nothingatthemoment]

CWU represented grades in Royal Mail rates differ. Delivery/Logistics also National/ inner/outer London
Where I work AWR qualified Angard workers are paid a higher hourly rate.

In 2013 I received this reply from Angard.
"The calculation of 12.07% is, as you have correctly stated, based on the
statutory minimum. As this calculation is built into our software for all
workers across Angard we are unable to change this when you qualify for
AWR. Because of this, your AWR rate is worked out slightly higher than
permanent workers at Royal Mail, to pay you in lieu for the extra holiday
pay that you are now owed."

No mention of meal breaks!

The 12.07% you mention is how Angard work out how much holiday pay you are entitled too , for example if you earn in a week £100 gross without deductions you will be entitled to £12.07 holiday pay.
The discrepancy is whether the T-Breaks deducted from Angard AWR , should be re-paid.
If Angard are changing the way in which they "compensate" Angard workers for T-breaks and holiday pay, they are in fact admitting that the way in which it previously calculated these , was incorrect.

[tabact]

As I understand it the holiday pay is an issue as the 12.07% is based on getting 28 days holiday a year. The tribunal ruled against Angard because Royal Mail staff apparently get 30 days a year so we should have been getting holiday paid at 13%

[Bazza01]

As I understand it the holiday pay is an issue as the 12.07% is based on getting 28 days holiday a year. The tribunal ruled against Angard because Royal Mail staff apparently get 30 days a year so we should have been getting holiday paid at 13%

The holiday issue is complicated but the break one is not the additional hourly rate did not compensate for the 30 minute deduction so we were in effect underpaid
but lets wait for the next email and see what they come up with. These issues are entirely of their own making so its their problem to sort and compensate anyone affected.

[rogersh]

Extract from EAT decision;
Agency workers: higher hourly rate cannot compensate for less favourable holiday and rest break entitlements

United Kingdom March 26 2018
In Kocur v Angard Staffing & Royal Mail, the EAT upheld an agency worker's claim for the same annual leave and rest break entitlement as a direct recruit, even though he was paid more, in total, for each shift than a direct recruit. The Agency Worker Regulations require a term by term comparison, not a package-based approach. However, the EAT upheld the Tribunal's view that there is no requirement to provide agency workers with the same amount of working hours as direct recruits.

Background

Under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 (AWR) agency workers are entitled to the same basic employment terms as the hirer's direct recruits after a 12-week qualifying period. The basic terms are those relating to pay, duration of working time, night work, rest periods, rest breaks and annual leave.

The claimant in this case received a higher hourly rate of pay than a direct recruit, but 2.5 days less holiday. He was only paid for 30 minutes of his one-hour rest break, whereas direct recruits were paid for the full hour. Overall, he received £1.95 more per shift than a direct recruit.

Comment

This is the first reported EAT decision on the right to equivalent terms provided by the AWR. The EAT's conclusion on the meaning of "the same" terms and their decision that the AWR require a term-by-term comparison are both unsurprising.

Here, the hirer seems to have provided the correct amount of pay overall, but the agency failed to allocate it correctly. Note that the agency (not the hirer) will generally be held responsible for any breach of the agency worker's 12-week rights as long as:

the hirer provides the correct information about the terms of its direct recruits, and
there is no other reason to hold the hirer responsible, such as collusion with the agency or obvious underpayment.

[NW11851]

The various judgements in Kocur & Roberts v Angard Staffing Solutions Limited & Royal Mail Group Limited cover rather more than pay for lunch breaks.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... thers_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The second respondent shall pay to the first claimant exemplary damages of
£8,000 for its breach of regulation 12 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
(AWR) by which it treated him less favourably than a comparable worker in failing to
provide him with a swipe card to access the Leeds Mail Centre from 15 September
2016 to 16 May 2017. The infringement constituted a series of failures to act after
the conclusion of the first proceedings and to the date of the application for an
amendment to bring this claim. It fell within a category of exemplary damages
whereby the second respondent calculated that it would generate a greater profit by
its continuation of this legal infringement than it would have to pay in compensation
to the first claimant."

Claimant 1 requested the provision of a swipe card to access his place of work.

RM refused.

The EAT stated that he should be provide with one. RM ignored this.

RM later argued that each swipe card cost them £8.00 to issue and that the annual cost for that particular MC alone would be £4,000, immediately, and possibly £120k per year.

Tee claimant stated that he had worked >850 hours during a 1o-month period without a swipe card yet a RM employee who worked only 8 hours per week received one.

As RM ignored the decision of the EAT they claimant returned to the EAT who awarded him compensation of £8,000.

Both claimants, ho are a couple, claimed for ongoing stress and anxiety re finances and other matters. The EAT was sympathetic to this an awarded them.

In addition, the second claimant complained that having brought Claim(s) to the EAT, she was effectively 'blacklisted' by a combinations of Angard/RM who invariably advised her that there was 'No work available' on Night shifts, yet observed her Angard colleagues entering the building!

Also, mysteriously, they were prevented from being advised of any RM vacancies for which they could apply; whereas, previously, they had been advised of such.

DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE SHOULD ALL RECEIVE SWIPE CARDS UPON REQUESTING THEM?

[Lockardian]

Personally I think it is reasonable for long term Angard staff to receive swipe cards, such as when they become AWR. By then the staff member has shown he or she is committed to the job. No point issuing them to every new recruit, who may decide after a few shifts the job isn’t right for him/her. Though RM are happy enough to issue them to Christmas Casuals who are only contracted to work for 3/4 weeks or so. If we ask and are refused, then the consequences for RM may be costly!

BTW, we don’t normally get a break in a 3hr shift, but today I was told to take one. I assume this is due to new Angard regulations, but have no idea if this break is paid or unpaid. I don’t really want to be docked 15 minutes off the only shift I’ve had in 4 weeks, so I would have happily worked through it. But without seeing the new regs, I’ve no idea what the implications of them will be for us.

[Lockardian]

Well, my payslip is online and the total “underpay” amount is some £40 less then I calculate it to be.

If the calculation is simply 5% of total gross pay beteeen the dates concerned (not counting any holiday pay, but not deducting pension contributions) then some £800 of wages is not accounted for. 5% of £800 = £40.

Has anyone else checked theirs?

The problem is that we have no information about how the back pay was calculated, and I doubt we will get this. Time to email payroll again??