employment - pay rise question
Discussion
some HR/employment rights advise required...
Back in 2001 a member of staff was deemed unfit for work due to ill health. We have a permanent health insurance scheme which pays the long-term sick person a proportion of their salary, as opposed I guess to dismissing the person.
At the time the employee was paid £25K.
6 and a bit years later the PHI people claim she is now fit for work and refuse to pay.
We have a vacancy for the modern equivalent of the same job she had in 2001 (advertised at £22K) which HR force us to offer to her.
As far as her contract is concerned HR are claiming she has not had a break in service, but she will be paid the new rate for the job = £22K.
She says, surely my pay should be at least what I was on back in 2001, and ideally should have had annual increments.
I can see the merits of either argument, but can the PHers help with a definitive solution?
TIA
FG
Back in 2001 a member of staff was deemed unfit for work due to ill health. We have a permanent health insurance scheme which pays the long-term sick person a proportion of their salary, as opposed I guess to dismissing the person.
At the time the employee was paid £25K.
6 and a bit years later the PHI people claim she is now fit for work and refuse to pay.
We have a vacancy for the modern equivalent of the same job she had in 2001 (advertised at £22K) which HR force us to offer to her.
As far as her contract is concerned HR are claiming she has not had a break in service, but she will be paid the new rate for the job = £22K.
She says, surely my pay should be at least what I was on back in 2001, and ideally should have had annual increments.
I can see the merits of either argument, but can the PHers help with a definitive solution?
TIA
FG
To be honest... I would offer 25k assuming she takes on any terms and conditions changes that have been adopted into the contract since.
In terms of increase in salary due to cost of living etc i am not to sure how to deal with that one. But at a basic rate of 2% PA would take the salary to 28k
Trickyone
In terms of increase in salary due to cost of living etc i am not to sure how to deal with that one. But at a basic rate of 2% PA would take the salary to 28k
Trickyone
If you take the issue out of the box, and think less into it then it becomes more simple.
The employee last got paid £25k in 2001. The same job now gets paid £22k for example.
Of course, she claims there has been no break in service etc etc.
How much do you bet that if that job was now advertised for £30k per year she would still be arguing her case for continuous employment and thus get £25k? Exactly.
Similarly, the pay increase issue is very one-sided. When people get an increase in pay it is because each year the employee and employer have assessed their position and the employer has decided to pay them more. This simply has not happened over the last 6 years - indeed even if it did there would be no obligation to keep increasing her wages or to do so even once.
Thus to argue the case that she should get paid more 'as if' this happened is just about as logical as treating the situation 'as if' during that period she 'would have' resigned or got sacked!
She is claiming continuous employment. If that is the case then her salary and terms are exactly the same as when she last worked unless they have specifically changed since. If in her terms her employment is not continuous, then she can take or leave any jobs you offer her...
The employee last got paid £25k in 2001. The same job now gets paid £22k for example.
Of course, she claims there has been no break in service etc etc.
How much do you bet that if that job was now advertised for £30k per year she would still be arguing her case for continuous employment and thus get £25k? Exactly.
Similarly, the pay increase issue is very one-sided. When people get an increase in pay it is because each year the employee and employer have assessed their position and the employer has decided to pay them more. This simply has not happened over the last 6 years - indeed even if it did there would be no obligation to keep increasing her wages or to do so even once.
Thus to argue the case that she should get paid more 'as if' this happened is just about as logical as treating the situation 'as if' during that period she 'would have' resigned or got sacked!
She is claiming continuous employment. If that is the case then her salary and terms are exactly the same as when she last worked unless they have specifically changed since. If in her terms her employment is not continuous, then she can take or leave any jobs you offer her...
QuiteJustinP1 said:
She is claiming continuous employment. If that is the case then her salary and terms are exactly the same as when she last worked unless they have specifically changed since. If in her terms her employment is not continuous, then she can take or leave any jobs you offer her...
This is the nub of the problem - I don't know whether she has or has not got continuous employment status - and it is our HR people that have confused the issue...When she was offered the job at 22K she took it, and made no reference to continuous employment, she was happy to be at work.
So far so good.
Now, our performance review process starts about now. I (and she) was expecting that she doesn't qualify for the formal process this year as she started past the cut-off date. No problem so far.
HR however informed her (and not me) that she should of course be subject to the formal process as she has been in continuous employment since before 2001.
She then puts 2 and 2 together and states the obvious "if that is the case why has my salary dropped".
grrr
ing clueFunkyGibbon said:
JustinP1 said:
She is claiming continuous employment. If that is the case then her salary and terms are exactly the same as when she last worked unless they have specifically changed since. If in her terms her employment is not continuous, then she can take or leave any jobs you offer her...
This is the nub of the problem - I don't know whether she has or has not got continuous employment status - and it is our HR people that have confused the issue...When she was offered the job at 22K she took it, and made no reference to continuous employment, she was happy to be at work.
So far so good.
Now, our performance review process starts about now. I (and she) was expecting that she doesn't qualify for the formal process this year as she started past the cut-off date. No problem so far.
HR however informed her (and not me) that she should of course be subject to the formal process as she has been in continuous employment since before 2001.
She then puts 2 and 2 together and states the obvious "if that is the case why has my salary dropped".
grrr
By implication, she has continuous employment because there was no termination of the contract even though no payment was made during the six year period.
To have the job done at the £22K at which she resumed her position, there was presumably a reappraisal of the job role during the six year period. You presumably will have proof that an employee undertook the role during the six years at £22K.
Are the duties exactly the same as when she went off ill? If not, it is easier to argue that the job isn't the same, although the title may be identical.
If the duties are the same, then you are paying the current market rate to have the position filled and the job done to an acceptable standard. It's much harder to argue a salary review that results in a reduction of pay if duties are the same but it does happen.
You may be able to appease her with a cost of living rise on the £22K as there can clearly be no increase based on merit as hse has only been back at work for a short time.
To have the job done at the £22K at which she resumed her position, there was presumably a reappraisal of the job role during the six year period. You presumably will have proof that an employee undertook the role during the six years at £22K.
Are the duties exactly the same as when she went off ill? If not, it is easier to argue that the job isn't the same, although the title may be identical.
If the duties are the same, then you are paying the current market rate to have the position filled and the job done to an acceptable standard. It's much harder to argue a salary review that results in a reduction of pay if duties are the same but it does happen.
You may be able to appease her with a cost of living rise on the £22K as there can clearly be no increase based on merit as hse has only been back at work for a short time.
If it is legal, put her on a probation period for 6 months....at £25k and assess the situation after that. Having said that, my old employer had similar circumstances with long term illness where the employee would come back to work on the asme pay (because they were paid full pay for 6 months) and complain that hadn't had a performance related pay increase..and in some circumstances, an inflationary rise either. Some of teh employees would then be sick for very nearly 6 months even though they were seen out and about, seemingly with no reason to not be working.
Employment law keeps changing so you'd be better off checking acas.org in case my suggestion gets you and your comapany in trouble, ie the employee takes you to court, wins £1000's ....and then gets to keep her job at £30,000!
Employment law keeps changing so you'd be better off checking acas.org in case my suggestion gets you and your comapany in trouble, ie the employee takes you to court, wins £1000's ....and then gets to keep her job at £30,000!
M400 NBL said:
If it is legal, put her on a probation period for 6 months....at £25k and assess the situation after that. Having said that, my old employer had similar circumstances with long term illness where the employee would come back to work on the asme pay (because they were paid full pay for 6 months) and complain that hadn't had a performance related pay increase..and in some circumstances, an inflationary rise either. Some of teh employees would then be sick for very nearly 6 months even though they were seen out and about, seemingly with no reason to not be working.
Employment law keeps changing so you'd be better off checking acas.org in case my suggestion gets you and your comapany in trouble, ie the employee takes you to court, wins £1000's ....and then gets to keep her job at £30,000!
Agreed. I think that would be a motivational way forward.Employment law keeps changing so you'd be better off checking acas.org in case my suggestion gets you and your comapany in trouble, ie the employee takes you to court, wins £1000's ....and then gets to keep her job at £30,000!
Give her her job back at the 25k and tell her you will look at her performance at the end of that and set a new rate accordingly.
Fundamentally asking for a wage rise based on performances which have not yet happened is wrong, which is basically what she is asking. If she is guenuine about coming back to work *permenantly* then she should have no reason not to want to rise to the challenge.
I say this as there is a more than outside possibility that whilst she has been in effect 'forced' back to work, getting a wage rise would be great... especially so if she can get a few more years off work in a few months time as *that* is now her current salary....!
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff