Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

[daftjoe]

That's the sort of thing we need bugsbunny. If it's an addendum to your contract surely it must be amended with your consultation individually not via the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement would only be valid for the generic contract in my book.

[bugsbunny]

Don't think we got a case for discrimination weebee, the new your pay and benefits booklet says for hourly paid staff and customer fulfilment centres

That's the way I would  think it to be Daftjoe

[the-vortex]

The document no/ref is RP7025/7/94  It clearly says on this document that hours worked on sunday will be paid at twice your normal hourly rate of pay.

I would suggest that when you agreed accepted cutting the Sundays and BHs rate of pay for future colleagues to 1.5x and the abolition of Overtime premiums the same that this became inoperative.

Just a thought, doing away with sunday double time in stores but not in distribution is that not discrimination as we all work for same employers.

We work for the same company as Drastic so perhaps we should ask for equal pay with him? Discrimination would need to based on there being a disproportionate detrimental effect on a specific group of employees (such as based on gender or race) for doing jobs of equivalent worth to the company.

[Duracell]

Just a thought, doing away with sunday double time in stores but not in distribution is that not discrimination as we all work for same employers

Distribution as a whole is much the same as retail with several tiers of terms and conditions.

Newer sites already have reduced premiums and different payment windows.
Some older sites have different contracts and terms within the same location.


So as a question of a claim of victimisation in comparison with distribution, distribution in general has already suffered a loss of premiums as new sites are opened.
Its difficult to challenge when all those who apply as a new starters or transfer in from elsewhere make a choice to accept the new terms, so it couldn't be argued that it is a forced change with no choice.

That's not to say you don't have a point, if it is certain that in retail one of the main objectives is to harmonise pay, to reduce multi tiered contracts in the same location, then your question is very valid and constructive.
A business concern/need should be applied consistently for it to be seen as credible and fair.
I believe the reason is solely paving the way to get you up to the living wage, in distribution most are at it or above it anyway, that's not to say they wouldn't do it anyway just cause they can. It is however definitely more difficult to action in distribution. You have one negotiating group, distribution has more than a few which make blanket changes to terms very difficult to negotiate and apply.

I can assure you Distribution are quietly worrying the approach will be applied their too.
I could speculate what would happen in that scenario but it would be mostly speculation other than it would be an extremely difficult time the likes of which distribution has never seen ( I am not implying industrial action).

In all fairness to this site, discussing the rights or wrongs of this change is really academic here, particularly when an opinion is without reasoning. Only a tribunal or a court will decide for sure.

Its difficult, my personal belief is a constructive well detailed reasoned challenge will win and prove the change unjust, we have seen from posts on this site that ACAS's view of the situation has changed, if posts on this site are correct then they have said the more people complain the more they are likely to scrutinise the deal.

It really is a case of YOU must say if YOU are not happy and don't agree to this change.
Predominately your Contract is about YOU and the company.

[daftjoe]

Vortex: The agreement that new starters should only get 1.5x on Sunday (whenever that was) would not have changed the existing double timers contract agreement.
As I understand it there is a single generic contract and then addendum's added to individuals personal files/contract to say what, if any, differences there are to that individuals terms and conditions.
So the document that bugsbunny mentions above would seem to be part of theirs. Each Sunday contracted double timer should have the same I guess.
It would be interesting to see how many have them in their personal files. Perhaps they should all ask their PM's to see them. 

[daftjoe]

Well said Duracell   

[Nightworker23]

I don't know how to go about it, bout it may be worth setting up a nationwide petition, to give to Dave Lewis.

And as for those who think it's fair that longer serving staff members should be on the same rates as newer staff. You new the rates and accepted them when you signed your Co tract, just as we did. Nobody forced your hand.

Also night workers who are losing premium. This is to be compensated for 18 months. However, the new pay rise is to be deducted from the compensation, so everyone,old or new is losing money. How is this a "FAIR" pay deal?

[tumshie]

If you are made to have a change which results in you getting protected pay, then that protected pay is reduced by the amount of any pay rise that happens after it starts, as well as by a certain % after 12 months.
This lump sum is being worked out in a similar way.

(Not that I'm saying it's fair, tho.)

[antico]

Don't forget that the rise in your personal tax allowance will also offset any loss in take home pay and even if you are only £2.00 better off there is no loss therefore no 18 month pay out.

[bugsbunny]

Totally agree Nightworker23 and Antico. T**co are so crafty do they think we are so stupid we don't know what they are doing. Surely someone must know a solicitor or know how we can take this to a tribunal without it costing us all a fortune. There must be a way we can stop them doing this to us.

[optout]

contact the MP whose details are given in another thread.

[Mungo]

I don't know how to go about it, bout it may be worth setting up a nationwide petition, to give to Dave Lewis.

And as for those who think it's fair that longer serving staff members should be on the same rates as newer staff. You new the rates and accepted them when you signed your Co tract, just as we did. Nobody forced your hand.

Also night workers who are losing premium. This is to be compensated for 18 months. However, the new pay rise is to be deducted from the compensation, so everyone,old or new is losing money. How is this a "FAIR" pay deal?

A petition for Dave Lewis? Won't change a thing I'm afraid. This is all business for him. Tesco can remove premiums with minimum fuss if they want to..and doing it during a pay rise to mitigate the decrease?

Tesco know exactly what they are doing.

Fairness doesn't come into it.

[yorkshireboy]

Don't forget that the rise in your personal tax allowance will also offset any loss in take home pay and even if you are only £2.00 better off there is no loss therefore no 18 month pay out.

The Personal allowance from the Government will have nothing to do with the amount you receive, your claim or lump sum will be based on your  monthly gross pay, pre and post July 1st.

[antico]

Where-after taking in to account the overall improvements to the pay and benefits package and the changes to premium payments, overtime rate, or location pay- if the combined changes result in a net financial loss, that employee will be entitled to an 18mths lump sum cushion to help them make the transition.           The calculation period used to determine whether someone qualifies for the payment will be their earnings in the year January 2015-December2015.                  If an individual has a net financial loss as a result of the combined changes, this will be confirmed to them by June 2016.                                                                                           

[daftjoe]

BUT it will be done on NET (take home) pay from last year and then TAX and N.I.taken off it!! So really you have paid tax and NI twice!!! 

[spooner]

BUT it will be done on NET (take home) pay from last year and then TAX and N.I.taken off it!! So really you have paid tax and NI twice!!! 

I keep saying this !!!! And when I brought this up in the pay briefing meeting I was told that I was wrong . It will be interesting to see what the final figures are and I think we could be in for a shock . Anyone agree ?

[antico]

It's the lump sum cushion payment that will be subject to the usual deductions for tax and N I.  and yes the personal allowance will make a difference as from April you will have a higher tax free allowance £ 11,000 p.a. meaning your take home pay will be a little bit higher.

[daftjoe]

Yes, but if the figures they are using for last year are net, and the ones that they use for next year are net as well, then the difference will be net! So how can it be right to pay tax and NI on it again???

[Morris999]

All those putting in grievances in against the company over double time, just be careful what you wish for

Let's say it goes to acas/courts , before 3rd July, I would not be surprised if Tesco cancel/suspend the pay rise for all colleagues until the outcome is known!
How do you think the 85% of colleagues are going to react to the 15% then!
And what happens if you actually win!
Do you think Tesco will then continue to give pay rises when they do not have to!
They will slash and burn everything they can to claw back the money!
Yes I can understand the position that some of the 15% are in, but you were always going to lose double time at some point, just like Saturday premiums beforehand etc!
If Tesco have completed it legally that's for you to decide, but if they haven't they will come back with all guns blazing the following year and remove them legally and knowing Tesco make you even worse off than now!
As we all know Tesco likes to hold a grudge!

[Mozzer]

This time On wage negotiations tesco didn't even want to give a wage rise at all ,also they wanted to make staff wait three days before getting sick pay fact.so it looks like they will make long term staff wait three days for sick on next negotiations so they can pay towards 2020 wages.all doom and gloom but can you please work harder lol.

[daftjoe]

MORRIS999: So what you are saying is that if someone commits an illegal act that should be ignored just in case when they are punished they then commit a worse one. I'm not so sure that is the way the British legal system is designed to work!!

Imagine if someone is guilty of GBH but they are let off just in case they commit murder if they are punished!!

Each case must be treated on its merits and if Tesco want to be vindictive then it is their company to do that but it must be vindictive legally and accept the consequences of its actions likewise.

[Morris999]

Daftjoe, that's not what I'm saying at all!
As far as I'm aware Tesco have done what they have done with double time legally!
Some people on here believe differently!
It's up to them to then decide what they do about it!
All I'm saying is that there could be consequences to there actions and to think it through!
Yes it's Tesco's company and of course they can be as vindictive as they want as long as its legal!
Again if Tesco lose, then they will come back and do it again, but I can assure you they will make sure what they do is legally tight!
And knowing that Tesco can be vindictive they will take more legally!

[the-vortex]

Yes, but if the figures they are using for last year are net, and the ones that they use for next year are net as well, then the difference will be net! So how can it be right to pay tax and NI on it again???

No, the net difference between what you worked and earned in 2015 and what you would earn under the same circumstances on the new arrangements in 2016. Not the net difference between the net pay.

[Loki]

I've been following this subject with interest since last posting.

With regards to the legality of the pay deal, I remain firm that it is compliant with legislation.

As stated on numerous occasions, I suggest those affected who doubt this, seek professional advice from a solicitor and sit down with them with all necessary paperwork/contracts to hand.

It's as simple as that.

Other avenues need to be explored and are of more importance than arguing to and fro about a matter that cannot be undone for reasons already given.

[oliver]

Good to hear from you Loki I hope the changes are not  going to hit you too much