Not paying overtime if timesheets are late

Gov.UK...

"Getting agreement
Usually, the employer and employee both need to agree to any contract changes. But an employee can insist on a change if they have a legal right to it.

Employers
You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

You should:

• consult or negotiate with employees or their representatives (for example from a trade union or staff association)
• explain the reasons for changes
• listen to alternative ideas from employees

You may also want to talk with workers, asking them about their future plans. With older employees this can include talking about their thoughts on retirement and their options for staying in the job, for example changes to their role, hours or working pattern."

You can make changes agree contracts via emails but in any case employers need agreement from the employees... (basic offer and acceptance in contract law)

Pretty sure they cannot legally do what they are trying to..

 

Yes, they can get the ball rolling.

 

As you know Kev, as team leader it was my responsibility to sign off o/t, if I didn't do it on the day I wouldn't have made it back to my locker at shift end. Some big lads in my team lol.

 

And then you'd all be hoping that big, thick, lump of lard in the Wages Dept. would finally get it right and pay you!

 

Ha Ha,that was never in doubt mate.

 

Thank you, old mate. The fiver's in the post!

 

If you have a clocking in/out machine and forget one of the other I’m pretty sure they can get away with only paying your contracted hours. Not defending it or saying it’s right by the way, just that if employees have a responsibility to submit a time sheet or clock in and out, they have to meet their obligations if they expect their employer to do the same.

 

What if there are no obligations in the contract? Is an email saying ‘this is now the way it works’, with no discussion, sufficient?

 

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but if they sent an email saying from now on over time is paid at triple time, employees wouldn’t feel the need for discussion? If they sent an email out saying from now on you get an additional holiday day on your birthday would that need discussion?
Every battle with HR I’ve ever seen about time sheets/clocking in always starts and finishes with it’s the employees’ responsibility to get their time sheet in by the stated time. So unless the process is deliberately made difficult at the same time as changing the rule about wanting timesheets in on time so the employer can avoid paying overtime, I don’t really think there’s a massive issue. Don’t forget someone has to input all the data from those timesheets somewhere, and no doubt that has to be done by a certain time so that payroll can do their part by a certain time so employees can be paid on the correct date. I don’t think it’s fair that people wouldn’t get paid for overtime they’ve worked but all they have to do is put their timesheet in on time and it will be paid, something which they should be doing anyway.

 

Just what I think; stop doing overtime, let the bosses do the work themselves, they probably don't get paid overtime. They wouldn't like it at all.

 

It’s pretty standard that contracts can be changed in the customer’s (or employee’s in this case) favour.

As for ‘something they should be doing anyway’, there never was an obligation to do that so it’s not something they should be doing. The ‘massive issue’ comes from the fact that it’s almost certainly illegal to not pay someone for work done when it sets out in the contract what the payment for that work will be (with no timesheet submission stipulations attached).

 

The only problem with that is that they hate giving overtime and make it out as if it’s a huge favour to the employee (even though it’s work that needs doing otherwise it wouldn’t be approved). It wouldn’t be the big bosses doing the work, it would be someone else who is salaried picking up the slack. There’s also been a big push lately to try and guilt anyone who does overtime to take it as TOIL or to ask people to just do the overtime voluntarily (and weirdly some people do it, even though others are getting paid). When it was pointed out that this was unfair the reply of ‘well it’s their choice, that’s why it’s voluntary’ was given.

 

All of that is irrelevant, it's illegal not to pay people for hours they have worked. As I said above if the issue is people not following the correct procedure for filing in timesheets ect then disciplinary procedure should be followed. Openly telling people they won't get paid is illegal and grounds for legal proceedings to recover the money from the employer.

 

People who do "voluntary" overtime are mainly doing it to ingratiate themselves with their employer, it never ends well - for the employee. It sounds to me like your employer is trying it on, I'm guessing that the employees are not very unionised.

 

Not massively, no. The problem is that wages are so low at the level this mostly affects that they don’t want to pay union subs out of it.

 

Typical of most low paid jobs, sadly. Best of luck with it all.