Working for nothing

[matchmaker]

Might sound daft, but can employer insist that an employee works a number of hours a month for no pay? I suspect that the answer is no........

[Ell-enn]

Normally I would say no.... but it can depend what's in the contract. Some of our accounts staff have a clause in their contract which says that at certain times of the month, they may be required to work extra time in order to meet company accounts deadlines, for which no payment will be made. That said, they usually can take this time off at a later date.

Kind Regards

Ell-enn

[Weird Al Yankovic]

As Ellen has said.

Also, an employer may argue that certain employees are not efficient enough to do work in a time frame that should be enough to do it so, rather than discipline, this type of thing is agreed.

However, I have known of countless times where an employer just expects people to basically work for nothing with no good excuse as to why they should not be paid for it.

In that case then it is up to the individual and the contract detail.

[matchmaker]

The situation is that I am contracted to a 35 hour week, Monday to Friday, that's all. But in addition I am expected to socialise with clients once a month, at a dinner dance or similar at a weekend. I don't get paid for my time (5-6 hours) but don't have to pay for my meal. I don't have to attend, but it has been made clear to me that I am expected to. On the few times I haven't been able to attend (I do have a life outside work!) I have not been popular

[advisee]

Originally Posted by Weird Al Yankovic

As Ellen has said.

Also, an employer may argue that certain employees are not efficient enough to do work in a time frame that should be enough to do it so, rather than discipline, this type of thing is agreed.

This would not be a reason to withold wages, and indeed could be seen as Disability Discrimination.

With respect of the original question, in general the employer can include such a clause in the contract. There are two things to bear in mind:

-maximum weekly working week cannot exceed 48 hours (for paid and unpaid working hours)

-average hourly rate (total weekly wage divided by total number of hours whether paid or unpaid) cannot go below the relevant minimum wage threshold.

However, on a practical level, as you're involved in client entertaining you obviously have a quite senior/professional job - this sort of extra commitment is par for the course in most professional environments, and complaining about this will not do your long term prospects any good. Just enjoy the free food/wine and recognise that client networking could result in you being offered a job with one of these clients in the future (if you can make people aware that you're good enough).

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by advisee

This would not be a reason to withold wages, and indeed could be seen as Disability Discrimination.

Huh?

This thread is about working for nothing. Withholding wages is a different issue.

And how would the OP complain of Disability Discrimination if he/she has no disability?

[Ell-enn]

[quote=advisee;1299537] maximum weekly working week cannot exceed 48 hours (for paid and unpaid working hours)


Unless of course you have signed an "opt out" agreement with your employer.

[advisee]

Ell-enn, you would assume that someone moaning about having to work more than their 35 hours would not sign an opt out...

But its worth mentioning (I believe) that an opt-out should be a specific seperate document, and that a clause in the employment contract/particulars is not sufficient.

[advisee]

Originally Posted by Weird Al Yankovic

Huh?

This thread is about working for nothing. Withholding wages is a different issue.

And how would the OP complain of Disability Discrimination if he/she has no disability?

You first implied witholding wages... or rather agreeing that if someone was a slow worker that they would (for example) work 36 hours and get paid for 35. You said:

an employer may argue that certain employees are not efficient enough to do work in a time frame that should be enough to do it so, rather than discipline, this type of thing is agreed.

But I am saying that to so penalise a slow worker could be seen as disability discrimination, purely because slow working could be caused by various underlying medical conditions (alzheimers, autism, etc).

Granted, it could simply be lazy people.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

Unless of course you have signed an "opt out" agreement with your employer.

Also, I believe that the 48 hour limit is not an absolute, but an average over 17 weeks

[sillygirl1]

The 48 hours are averaged over a 17 week period as patdavies stated above. Opting out is usually done at the start of the employment by sigining some kind of statement - usually it's included in your terms and conditions document now.

Certain people, fishermen, doctors, and others still don't have exemption from this although it is obligatory for medical staff now to not exceed 48 hours per week.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by sillygirl1

The 48 hours are averaged over a 17 week period as patdavies stated above.

Not the case if the employment lasted for less than this 17 week reference period.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by advisee

You first implied witholding wages... or rather agreeing that if someone was a slow worker that they would (for example) work 36 hours and get paid for 35. You said:



But I am saying that to so penalise a slow worker could be seen as disability discrimination, purely because slow working could be caused by various underlying medical conditions (alzheimers, autism, etc).

Granted, it could simply be lazy people.

Nope, I didn't mention or imply an employer holding back pay.

Also, it is for a prospective employee to alert an employer of a disability, or to declare as such on the application form if asked, as an employer may be able to accomodate the particular disibility for the role on offer.

How could a prospective employer know that an applicant has an allergy to goose feathers where he is offering a job at his factory which stuffs duvets with goose feathers unless it is disclosed?

Why/how could he be liable?

[advisee]

Originally Posted by Weird Al Yankovic

Why/how could he be liable?

Employers duty to risk assess and take occupational health advice (HSWA74 among others).

Look how many tribunal cases have an employee with a comparitively minor ailment, that a solicitor/advocate can spin into a disability - irrespective of whether the employer has notified theirself as disabled.

Granted - with the goose feather analogy the employee also has a duty under HSWA74.