• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

A question about employee rights


ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,045
Can anyone give me advice on this topic, as I can't find the specific answer on Citizen's Advice.
An employer has the standard three shift cycle, with a premium of 16.66% for working 7am - 3 pm, 3pm - 11 pm, and a premium of 25% for those working 11pm - 7am.
If the employer decides, instead of everyone rotating, he/she allocates a specific group to work 7am - 3pm only, 3pm -11pm only, or 11pm - 7am only, can they do so and avoid paying shift premium and remain within the law?
If you know definitively the answer to this, can you provide me with a link to the website whereupon the information is contained? Thanks.
This would be in relation to where the employee has a contract in existence with the shift premium contained already.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,595
Can anyone give me advice on this topic, as I can't find the specific answer on Citizen's Advice.
An employer has the standard three shift cycle, with a premium of 16.66% for working 7am - 3 pm, 3pm - 11 pm, and a premium of 25% for those working 11pm - 7am.
If the employer decides, instead of everyone rotating, he/she allocates a specific group to work 7am - 3pm only, 3pm -11pm only, or 11pm - 7am only, can they do so and avoid paying shift premium and remain within the law?
If you know definitively the answer to this, can you provide me with a link to the website whereupon the information is contained? Thanks.
NERA - National Employment Rights Authority - Home
 

commonman

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
5,357
Can anyone give me advice on this topic, as I can't find the specific answer on Citizen's Advice.
An employer has the standard three shift cycle, with a premium of 16.66% for working 7am - 3 pm, 3pm - 11 pm, and a premium of 25% for those working 11pm - 7am.
If the employer decides, instead of everyone rotating, he/she allocates a specific group to work 7am - 3pm only, 3pm -11pm only, or 11pm - 7am only, can they do so and avoid paying shift premium and remain within the law?
If you know definitively the answer to this, can you provide me with a link to the website whereupon the information is contained? Thanks.
This would be in relation to where the employee has a contract in existence with the shift premium contained already.
They have the right tot keep there shift rate if there been moved on to days full time, and there is a rate for evening and nights i think is 16% evenings and 25% nights, i could be wrong.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
14,029
If the shift payment is built into their contracts, then that is being breached. If a unionised employment, fairly straight forward, get it involved, probably end up at 3rd party.
 

Patrick Clifford

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
2
Sorry to hijack this thread, I have a question myself about my rights, I don't know how to start a new thread...maybe 'cos I have no posts? anyway.....
I have been working for a company for 18 months. I have had no contract, but I have been working on average of 40 hours per week. When I started with them, I said I needed minimum 30 hours per week. Recently they asked me to sign a contract saying I would be getting minimum 25 hours per week. I told them I would have to think about it.

I believe that I read that if I had been working for a period of time for 39 hours, that they could not reduce my hours, unless needed to because the business no longer required me for that many hours. In the past 18 months, they have hired maybe 12 more people to do the same work as me. My understanding-which may be wrong, is that if they have to give me my 39 hours of work, before they give hours to newer employees. I would be perfectly happy with a 35 hour contract, but 25 hours would not meet my financial needs.

If anyone can point me to my rights regarding this, it would be appreciated. I believe I saw it on citizens rights or some similar site, where it stated that I was basically entitled to the average amount of hours I had worked over x amount of time, as long as there was a role for me, and they could not bring in someone else and give them some of my hours.

If I omitted anything, then please feel free to ask and I will fill it in. Thank you in advance.
 

ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,045
If the shift payment is built into their contracts, then that is being breached. If a unionised employment, fairly straight forward, get it involved, probably end up at 3rd party.
They refuse to recognize the union, although I am a union member myself, as a matter of principle.
You wouldn't happen to have a concrete link to a recognised government or citizen's advice web site. I have been looking, but can't find an answer to that specific question?
 

SayItAintSo

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
11,349
They refuse to recognize the union, although I am a union member myself, as a matter of principle.
You wouldn't happen to have a concrete link to a recognised government or citizen's advice web site. I have been looking, but can't find an answer to that specific question?
I'm not sure there will be anything to address that specific scenario. I think it comes down to the contract and whether your employer is altering the terms and conditions you both initially agreed to.
 

Moshe Dayan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
43
To be honest, as an employer if I had a lad in whinging to me about his 'entitlements' I wouldn't be long showing him the door. Should be happy to have a job in these challenging times. 400,000 other lads ready to take up the job if they start moaning.
 

ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,045
Sorry to hijack this thread, I have a question myself about my rights, I don't know how to start a new thread...maybe 'cos I have no posts? anyway.....
I have been working for a company for 18 months. I have had no contract, but I have been working on average of 40 hours per week. When I started with them, I said I needed minimum 30 hours per week. Recently they asked me to sign a contract saying I would be getting minimum 25 hours per week. I told them I would have to think about it.

I believe that I read that if I had been working for a period of time for 39 hours, that they could not reduce my hours, unless needed to because the business no longer required me for that many hours. In the past 18 months, they have hired maybe 12 more people to do the same work as me. My understanding-which may be wrong, is that if they have to give me my 39 hours of work, before they give hours to newer employees. I would be perfectly happy with a 35 hour contract, but 25 hours would not meet my financial needs.

If anyone can point me to my rights regarding this, it would be appreciated. I believe I saw it on citizens rights or some similar site, where it stated that I was basically entitled to the average amount of hours I had worked over x amount of time, as long as there was a role for me, and they could not bring in someone else and give them some of my hours.

If I omitted anything, then please feel free to ask and I will fill it in. Thank you in advance.
They are obliged to give you a contract within two months of starting work, according to citizen's advice site.
If they're giving people who are doing your job a greater number of hours than you (and that can be a minefield in itself -they might argue you have dissimilar skill sets and abilities - they're good at that kind of thing) then by common working practice and on basis of seniority you should get first crack at the full working week. If they're also part time workers I couldn't say if they're prohibited from hiring more part timers alongside yourself. Unfortunately this is only my opinion. Probably like myself you'd need to contact them during working ours. For reasons of expediency I had hoped to know the answer before returning to work Monday morning.
 

ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,045
To be honest, as an employer if I had a lad in whinging to me about his 'entitlements' I wouldn't be long showing him the door. Should be happy to have a job in these challenging times. 400,000 other lads ready to take up the job if they start moaning.
Get fúcked. I have no interest in your "opinions".
 

elliebee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
5,005
Sorry to hijack this thread, I have a question myself about my rights, I don't know how to start a new thread...maybe 'cos I have no posts? anyway.....
I have been working for a company for 18 months. I have had no contract, but I have been working on average of 40 hours per week. When I started with them, I said I needed minimum 30 hours per week. Recently they asked me to sign a contract saying I would be getting minimum 25 hours per week. I told them I would have to think about it.

I believe that I read that if I had been working for a period of time for 39 hours, that they could not reduce my hours, unless needed to because the business no longer required me for that many hours. In the past 18 months, they have hired maybe 12 more people to do the same work as me. My understanding-which may be wrong, is that if they have to give me my 39 hours of work, before they give hours to newer employees. I would be perfectly happy with a 35 hour contract, but 25 hours would not meet my financial needs.

If anyone can point me to my rights regarding this, it would be appreciated. I believe I saw it on citizens rights or some similar site, where it stated that I was basically entitled to the average amount of hours I had worked over x amount of time, as long as there was a role for me, and they could not bring in someone else and give them some of my hours.

If I omitted anything, then please feel free to ask and I will fill it in. Thank you in advance.
Being asked to reduce your pay or your hours of work

Employing many workers on shorter time is quite a smart trick for employers to reduce their PRSI contributions and give little or no breaks to their employees. If your employer is going down that line, your new Contract might only be for 6 months and you'll get another new one in 6 more months. They are doing their damnedest to make sure workers have little or no rights these days.

Are your 25 hours spread out over the entire week so you won't be able to claim Jobseekers for days you're not working? Maybe your employer could give you all 25 hours over a 3 day period so you could claim Benefit for the other three to help you make ends meet.

As far as I know even though you didn't have a Contract you had an implied Contract and your employer broke the law by not giving you one. I presume you didn't get any Terms and Conditions of Employment either? You still have your rights though but whether it's worth fighting for has to be decided by you. If these new reduced working hours are being imposed anyway you should write your employer a letter stating that you are accepting only as you have no alternative.

These days however it might be best to keep your mouth shut and leave as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
 
R

Ramps

Re OP:

There may well be an issue if the employer has changed the terms of employment without the consent of the workers, but I think what you're getting at is whether the employer must pay premiums for certain shifts? Is that really what you're asking?
 

elliebee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
5,005
To be honest, as an employer if I had a lad in whinging to me about his 'entitlements' I wouldn't be long showing him the door. Should be happy to have a job in these challenging times. 400,000 other lads ready to take up the job if they start moaning.
And may I take this opportunity to thank you 'most sincerely' for your contribution (and others like you) in helping to bring this country to its knees.

You, and people like you, do not deserve our custom and I'm damned glad I make sure my few pence is spent in estabishments I know treat their staff with more respect than you obviously do.
 

Moshe Dayan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
43
And may I take this opportunity to thank you 'most sincerely' for your contribution (and others like you) in helping to bring this country to its knees.

You, and people like you, do not deserve our custom and I'm damned glad I make sure my few pence is spent in estabishments I know treat their staff with more respect than you obviously do.
I'll think you find overpaid public sector workers is currently why we are paying out much more than we take in, and honest hard-working business people like myself are being taxed to the eyeballs to foot the bill. Not to mention having to pay for a sizeable proportion of the live register to spend their time squandering their dole money in the bookies and the off-licence.

I also think you'll find people's morals don't come into it when they are struggling to get by. They'll go to the cheapest supplier, which happens to be the guy who keeps costs low - i.e pays minimum wage, or better yet, get Tomasz Polack and Vladimir Rooskey to do it for cheaper.
 

ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,045
Re OP:

There may well be an issue if the employer has changed the terms of employment without the consent of the workers, but I think what you're getting at is whether the employer must pay premiums for certain shifts? Is that really what you're asking?
Sorry for not explaining it properly. The premium is in the existing contract.
A number of people rotate on three shifts and there is a substantial rumour abroad that they may align a fixed number of people to permanent day, evening or night in order to eliminate the shift premium, presumably on the grounds that they're not doing shift work any more. Can they do that without bribing/intimidating/coercing you into signing a new contract of employment to that end?
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,937
To be honest, as an employer if I had a lad in whinging to me about his 'entitlements' I wouldn't be long showing him the door. Should be happy to have a job in these challenging times. 400,000 other lads ready to take up the job if they start moaning.
Indeed. You are what is known as a "Curnt" as John Biffo might say.

Even though I don't believe you employ anybody.
 

Patrick Clifford

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
2
Thanks for the reply Ellie,
I definitely think they are trying to pull a fast one, however, the contract states a 'minimum' of hours and when I said that amount of hours was not good enough for me, then he again reiterated 'minimum'. I said that I could not work for 25 hrs that it was not enough, and yes, it would/could be spread out over 5 days. I am there 18 mths, I believe that they have too many people taken on and to honor all contracts, they would not have enough hours to give me my 39 that I have been working. I may be wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that if I was working 35 or so hours on average for a period of time-which I have been doing for a year-that they could not reduce my hours while hiring new people, but they could reduce my hours if they are no longer able to provide work for me.

The new hours have not been imposed, but I don't want to give them more power in their fight to take hours from me. I believe that you are right, that they have broken the law by not giving me a contract of employment, however, that would not be worth fighting for, in my opinion. I really don't want to get aggressive, but I want to be able to know my cards and what I hold, before I go into a meeting with them and discuss it, as they obviously will know their rights and will neglect to inform me of mine.
that I ha
Employing many workers on shorter time is quite a smart trick for employers to reduce their PRSI contributions and give little or no breaks to their employees. If your employer is going down that line, your new Contract might only be for 6 months and you'll get another new one in 6 more months. They are doing their damnedest to make sure workers have little or no rights these days.

Are your 25 hours spread out over the entire week so you won't be able to claim Jobseekers for days you're not working? Maybe your employer could give you all 25 hours over a 3 day period so you could claim Benefit for the other three to help you make ends meet.

As far as I know even though you didn't have a Contract you had an implied Contract and your employer broke the law by not giving you one. I presume you didn't get any Terms and Conditions of Employment either? You still have your rights though but whether it's worth fighting for has to be decided by you. If these new reduced working hours are being imposed anyway you should write your employer a letter stating that you are accepting only as you have no alternative.

These days however it might be best to keep your mouth shut and leave as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
14,029
They refuse to recognize the union, although I am a union member myself, as a matter of principle.
You wouldn't happen to have a concrete link to a recognised government or citizen's advice web site. I have been looking, but can't find an answer to that specific question?
Look here :
Labour Relations Commission - Ireland - LRC.ie

I know from talking to some of their officials years back that they like to get involved in early advice on an issue rather than waiting for a dispute to arise.
 
Top