Minimum Wage - Legal Help Please
Discussion
My son is a few weeks into his chef job (at a good hotel) and has today received his contract.
It confirms that his pay is £15k/annum and that he will be required to work 40 hours per week, but also that he'll "sometimes" be asked to do overtime. That overtime is not paid. Nor is there any suggestion that he will be given time off in lieu.
Now 40 hours per week equals £7.20/hour or thereabouts, but it has been very obvious from the start of his job (and something that he knew about before) that the requirement will ALWAYS be to work 50-55 hours per week. Indeed that is what he's been doing.
Now I'm sure that a company can't get around the minimum wage laws by just telling someone they will work 40 hours per week and expect them to do free overtime, because as things stand he's being paid about £5.50 per hour.
He's young, some of the staff are younger, and they're all clearly in the same boat. They value their jobs but I can't help thinking that they're all being paid a lot less than is legally required. My son doesn't want to rock the boat, and he's wary that he could end up getting a hard time at work if he's the one who raises the issue with the HR dept, but equally he's not prepared to work for below minimum wage.
I'd be interested to know whether the hotel can in fact get around the law by going with the 40 hour thing, and also interested in any general comments about the situation and recommendations on a course of action.
Sorry for the long post, help MUCH appreciated.
It confirms that his pay is £15k/annum and that he will be required to work 40 hours per week, but also that he'll "sometimes" be asked to do overtime. That overtime is not paid. Nor is there any suggestion that he will be given time off in lieu.
Now 40 hours per week equals £7.20/hour or thereabouts, but it has been very obvious from the start of his job (and something that he knew about before) that the requirement will ALWAYS be to work 50-55 hours per week. Indeed that is what he's been doing.
Now I'm sure that a company can't get around the minimum wage laws by just telling someone they will work 40 hours per week and expect them to do free overtime, because as things stand he's being paid about £5.50 per hour.
He's young, some of the staff are younger, and they're all clearly in the same boat. They value their jobs but I can't help thinking that they're all being paid a lot less than is legally required. My son doesn't want to rock the boat, and he's wary that he could end up getting a hard time at work if he's the one who raises the issue with the HR dept, but equally he's not prepared to work for below minimum wage.
I'd be interested to know whether the hotel can in fact get around the law by going with the 40 hour thing, and also interested in any general comments about the situation and recommendations on a course of action.
Sorry for the long post, help MUCH appreciated.
21TonyK said:
Kitchens are notorious for stupidly long hours sometimes, especially hotels with a 3 meal service where its not unknown for a breakfast chef to be pulling split shifts to cover evening service as well.
I've employed quite a few chefs over the years and also worked as one. Basically that's how the system works. If you want to get the experience and develop your career you will be first in and last out. Head chefs notice this and your the one they move up.
One place I ran was very seasonal and the contract was an average of 42 hours per week over any 13 week period. No overtime but TOIL which many saved up and used at an agreed time as extra holiday. Some of the guys would do 26 weeks and then get 6 weeks paid holiday/TOIL at the end of their contract as a bonus.
Yes, thanks for that. There's no suggestion of any time off in lieu though and I don't think that it's right that the minimum wage laws should be abused in this way. Indeed, regardless of whether or not that's "how the system works", the hotel is breaking the law is it not?I've employed quite a few chefs over the years and also worked as one. Basically that's how the system works. If you want to get the experience and develop your career you will be first in and last out. Head chefs notice this and your the one they move up.
One place I ran was very seasonal and the contract was an average of 42 hours per week over any 13 week period. No overtime but TOIL which many saved up and used at an agreed time as extra holiday. Some of the guys would do 26 weeks and then get 6 weeks paid holiday/TOIL at the end of their contract as a bonus.
BJG1 said:
Yep, it's illegal. Getting anything done about it will be tricky though, best bet is probably to whistle blow, companies like this deserve punishing.
Yes that's my feeling too. I have discussed this with the lad though but he is concerned that all of the top-end chefs in the area know each other well, and that if he were to rock the boat then he will compromise his career prospects.Equally, he knows he's being underpaid by quite a lot, and that others are too.
Between us we shall take a soft and polite approach, backed up by the fact that I'm well connected to a couple of local journalists.
BJG1 said:
If he asks, they'll do nothing and then know it's him if the company end up in trouble. I'd have said inform the relevant Government agency without talking to the employer, that way nobody will know it came from him and the employer will be forced to pay min. wage.
A fair point. We certainly won't be rushing in to anything. He's keeping an exact note of the hours worked.Thanks all.
condor said:
I think he should go with the flow for a few months and see what happens. It could well be there are perks down the line which will more than make up for the long hours he's now doing. And/or there may be ways to speed up his work to fit in with the payable hours.
Yes, thanks for that. I think that's the best way to proceed and I also take the point about how much money good chefs can earn.If he sticks at it I think he'll go far, and not having a bloody great student loan seems like a big plus point. The trouble is that part of me, and part of him, knows that his employer shouldn't be able to get away with this. He takes after me here and at some point the whistle will be blown, but now isn't the time.
We'll probably call the government helpline tomorrow to seek some advice, and very much with an approach to not naming names at this point. (Clearly if they have his details they can look up his employer so anonymity will be discussed first).
I also happen to agree about the overtime thing, and that should be illegal. Nobody should have to work for free and there's no question that a legal requirement should be to state how much you'll be paid, how many hours you are required to work, and how much you'll be paid for overtime requested by the employer.
Time off in lieu seems a fair compromise but nobody should be expected to work for 55 hours when they're being paid for 40.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff