annualised hours?

[uniman]

Is anybody else on an annualised hours contract? I was bought out a few years ago in my last job, but left before it really took effect (and happily pocketed the money) I am now in a new job on same conditions. Our year runs Sept-Sept, and a colleague has told me he is already 30 hours over his annual hours. Obv. not working for next couple of months is unreal, equally getting time off in lieu is unrealistic in a deparftment of 3. It is an understandign that overtime pay is unavailable.

 

Is this getting more common inorder to avoid extra payments?

[Bobbsy]

I'm not on annualised hours (now retired) but recall in great detail when ITN's suits came up with this great idea for cost control.

 

It controlled costs beautifully for six or eight months but then came a combination of a big overseas story and the realisation that all their best staff had already worked their full year's hours and were away on gardening leave!

 

First came an upsurge in the use of freelancers, then the panic phone calls to staffers offering a "without prejudice" buyout to get them to go back to work.

 

It amazes me that accountants are still touting this as a way to save money...but I fear that your small department may have to become a bit militant about sticking to the agreed hours. Otherwise, you're simply being taken advantage of...and I speak as an ex manager...but one who could see the nonsense in this when the suits proposed it.

 

Bob

[Kaboni]

I work at the ICC in Birmingham and we've been on Annualised hours for five or 6 years now.

Basically you can kiss overtime goodbye.

Our year runs September to August because the summer is traditionally quiet.

This gives the Management the chance to reduce the hours before the end of the year so they don't have to pay any extra.

There are 16 of us and this time of year we are all plus hours but will be rota'd off during the summer.

We also stick to the Working Time Directive, i.e. 11 hour breaks but we have no maximum working day.

Hope this is helpful.

[Guest lightnix]

I remember one venue up in London, where the management made moves to sneak in annualised hours, as one line in a whole package of contractual changes. Luckily the head of the A/V department spotted what was happening and made sure that his people had "to a maximum of 2,400 hours" inserted in their new contracts.

 

Mind you, that still works out at just over 46 hours a week, over 52 weeks, 50 hours over 48 weeks (assuming 4 weeks holiday).

[Bobbsy]

I guess the fairness of annualised hours depends on the figure where the hours are set, and the amount paid as the buyout for overtime. Depending on these numbers, it CAN be okay for the staffer, especially if there's a value in having a predictable monthly income without huge ups and downs depending on the season.

 

However, it also depends on staff not continuing to work for free once the annual hour limit has been reached, otherwise it's exploitation pure and simple.

 

Bob

[SeanT]

I work at the ICC in Birmingham and we've been on Annualised hours for five or 6 years now.

Basically you can kiss overtime goodbye.

 

Isn't that the point??

[Tomo]

However, it also depends on staff not continuing to work for free once the annual hour limit has been reached, otherwise it's exploitation pure and simple.

Isn't that illegal?

In that position, the whole staff should walk out.

[timperrett]

As far as I am aware, the European Working Time Directive is the main thing to bear in mind. The company I work for (full time employed in the industry in a department of 6 and I am paid a set 'salery' and not a 'per hour' amount) request that you sign a 48hr opt-out agreement which states that you are happy to work 48 hours a week on average over 17 weeks. To help this, we get our weekends back 'in lieu' and operate a 12hr rule, where once you have left the warehouse from finishing work (say 4am) you don't come back to work till 4pm the following day. I just have to make sure I am in touch with my line manager on a week by week basis to plan in my lieu time in the diary.

 

Varients of this type of hours exist for a fair number of companies that I know of (check out the way the RAH do it for their TSMs- that seems to work from what I have heard). Hope that helps! I would encourage you to take it up with your line manager in a positive way to ensure H&S standards are maintained so you don't do anything stupid due to tiredness and that both sides (you and the company you work for) get a fair deal.

 

All the best with you search for a fair deal for all!

[paulears]

I knew my annualised hours were not going to be sorted amicably when the financial director offered to come to me to discuss it. He said "as you know, you are way over hours, but we can't do without you in term time - so the only solution is to take the time owed during your holiday!" (as in lose it!!)

[PDD]

I'm just about to change onto an annualised hours contract at my new job (1,950 hours). It seems to me to be the better deal, as in my case;

1) It's up to me to manage my own hours.

2) There is a minimum holiday period built into the contract (33 days), plus I can take additional holiday for those "in leiu" hours overtime, which being a school, is perfectly possible out of term time/during half-terms.

3) My contract allows for the possibility that it won't be possible to take all my in leiu hours, and therefore will pay overtime (although there is a cap limit for this).

4) I'm still under the WTD, so over the average period I still have to work reasonable hours (again, being school, there is always an available holiday period every 6 weeks in order to lower the average).

 

Obviously it doesn't sound like you have these provisions so I can understand how you might get caught out. At the end of the day, you need to decide whether you enjoy the job or whether you'd rather give it up because of the hours.

[Bobbsy]

Applied the way PDD describes, annualised hours can be an okay deal for employees and management.

 

However, all too often things are more like the situation the OP is in with people already in excess of the contracted hours, feeling unable to take the time off, but no longer getting overtime. This is exploitation.

 

Bob

[Guest lightnix]

Maybe drifting slightly away from the OPs question, but it seems to me that TOIL agreements, in any shape or form, are usually "one directional" and almost always end in tears; indeed, just the other day, somebody was wondering on MSN what to do about the 11 weeks holiday they are due under their TOIL agreement.

 

I'm not a full-timer, so I've no personal experience of such deals, but what's the legal position here regarding enforcement of TOIL clauses? Surely such agreements should work both ways, so that if the Management have been unable to manage your time effectively, there should be some kind of Pay In Lieu Of Time Off (PILOTO :huh: ) in return. Has anybody ever sued their employer over a TOIL matter and if so, what was the outcome?

 

Do the unions have a position on this and are they able to offer any help in cases where a TOIL agreement has got out of hand? :unsure:

 

Maybe an alternative solution would be to say "Yes" to TOIL, but only up to x weeks, after which any overtime worked must be paid for, until the time off (or a reasonable proportion of it) has been taken. Another one might be to see whether there are any benefits "in kind" that you can wangle, in return for some flexibility (on your part); things like taxis / subsidised travel, food / Luncheon Vouchers (if they still do them), a nice comfy crew room, better equipment, an extra casual or two in the busy times. I know you have to be very careful about "benefits in kind", as they can reduce your tax-free pay, but if you're not going to be allowed the time off you are due, you may at least be able to use that to make your working lives a little more comfortable

 

Don't forget, though: when it comes to hours in general, there are other issues involved...

[Bobbsy]

Well, I have experience (from the management side) of this sort of thing from a couple of different companies and, handled badly, it could be a big problem.

 

With one company, technically we (early on) took the decision to allow staff to "sell back" their DOILs (for some reason we called it days off in lieu rather than time off). This was a bit of management fiction that allowed the suits to claim "we don't pay overtime" while letting the staff augment their salaries when they needed to. We had a semi-official policy limiting the number of days a person could build up before either taking the time or the cash...we didn't want to build up a limitless liability of days owing. The system was a bit cumbersome but worked out okay for all concerned. FYI, the work schedule meant that the daily roster was pretty predictable, with few days when we could just "run light". If a staffer took a DOIL, we had to replace him/her with a freelance and (as noted in another thread) the rates for these were actually higher than buying a day from somebody owed time off. This made it a relatively easy sell to the suits.

 

The other company went for the annualised hours scheme and tried to apply it rigidly. Unfortunately, it was a TV news company and, by definition, the best crews were sent out into the nastier parts of the world where they worked all hours of the day. The suits were happy campers until about halfway through the financial year when one of the best field operators basically said "well, that's my hours for the year...I'll see you in six months!". More quickly followed and the company rapidly found they were spending a fortune on freelancers who (with respect) often didn't have the same experience as the staffers who were being paid to lie in the sun.

 

There were major arguments at management level between the accountants (who just saw numbers) and production (who wanted their best people back) and eventually there were a number of "without prejudice" special buyouts. They kept the annualised hours, but next year were more reasonable with the setting of hours...and more careful to regulate how the hours built up.

 

Basically, great care has to be taken in the setting up of how these schemes work...and people who actually understand the work patterns should be involved (but, all too often, are not).

 

Bob

[uniman]

Some interesting points. I have also wondered about the euro working time directive, doesn't it average over a week? I also like the idea of holding the company to ransom for some small imporvements to our working environment as we all approach our hours ( we have worked out that we should all hit within 2 months of each other. Can't seem to see them agreing to overtime or paying for extra work we effectively do for free, but if en masse our department of six demanded extra hours worked to be considered during our annual reviews, we may have some leverage.

 

Thanks for the replys

[djw1981]

European working time is 48hours per week over 17 weeks ie a maximum of 816 hours in 17 weeks. A week holiday counts as 0 hours, even though you are paid.