My daughter began a part-time job in September, contracted to 21 hours a week.....Since starting though, she has (happily) worked full time hours, apparently covering holidays, sickness, also because they were over-stretched with work, etc.

3 months in, she is enjoying the job and, of course, enjoying a decent pay packet.....The main concern I have though is the holiday pay situation?

With her contract she will only be entitled to 21 hours pay....Also, if the present situation continues, she may get quite a few months down the line earning good money, then suddenly receive a significant jolt, if they decide to 'cut' her hours.

My main question is....Is there any way she can negotiate a contract that is more appropriate for what she is actually working?.....It just seems a little unfair if she was to work 6-12 months full time, they could suddenly pull the plug with little warning.

(And before Dally comes on with his sanctimonious claptrap, I do realise she is lucky to have a job....

)

My youngest was in that situation a couple of years ago, she went from having a Saturday job in a Dry Cleaners to working full time for them when she left further education without a change to her contract, after nine months she wrote to the HR Dept and pointed out that she was still on a 6 hour/week contract and could she have a full time one - they upgraded her to a 20 hour contract and so she left shortly afterwards.

There is a lot of abuse of young workers and temporary contracts.

By asking?

Her contract is 21 hours, so assuming she receives the statutory, or legal minimum holidays, then this is pro-rata'd. Her other hours are 'extra', so if she doesn't work them, then she doesn't work them.

I always under the impression that if you are regularly working more hours then you can argue that is your contract? It's not something I ever needed to do though or even know all the details.

In all honesty though, how would it be favorable to prevent the employer reducing her hours in the future? Obviously I can see why it's a negative for your daughter but if if say the business is failing or simply can't afford to have as many full time staff surely it's better to have guaranteed hours than no hours?

If your daughter doesn't like that she could always get a full time position.

By law, where a worker has variable hours then their holiday pay entitlement is their average wage over the preceding 12 weeks.

The wife of a friend of mine has worked in a Morrisons supermarket for over 15 years and is on a 9.75 hour contract, but has NEVER worked less than 20 hours and regularly works over 40 hours, but gets her holidays based on her contract. It's cr@p, but unlikely to be changed in favour of the worker anytime soon.

If the addiotnal hours are classed as overtime I wouldnt think additional holidays etc would count

In a previous job I started as agency staff so pretty much didn't get paid holidays, but apparently our boss told us we got something silly like an extra quid a day so that over however many weeks we worked it would equate to being paid for the days holiday that we didn't have as such, I eventually got given a 20 hour a week contract which entitled me to 10 paid days per year, which covered the minimum 4 week period, however I very rarely just worked 20 hours, Everyone else had 40 hour contracts except me and one other lad, they all got 20 days holiday and all the rest of it, but me and another bloke working the same hours as them only got 10, I argued my case and got no where, I was given the impression that If i didn't do the overtime then my job wouldn't be around for long so did all the overtime even though I didn't want to do it, some weeks i worked double shifts and did around 95 hours a week in some periods which was ridiculous. Looking back I should have looked at employment laws and had them done but I just left and got another job in the end. I can imagine a lot of company's do this to try and save on forking out holiday pay.

28 days (pro rata) is the legal minimum these days

117.6 hours will be her basic yearly entitlement

Yes, I'm fully aware of this - My point is that it seems unfair to be working 40+ hours a week, yet only be paid holiday pay = 21 hours a week.

It seems obvious that there is a financial and advantageous legal reason for the company to be keeping her on a 21 hour a week contract....I was just curious to whether there is anything that she can do about this?

I'll talk to my HR person about this on Monday. She owes me a favour.

Is she forced to work the extra hours?

And therein is the main question.

I am contracted to 28.5 hours a week but haven't worked less than full time for months. However this suits me as it means during the school holidays I drop down to the more manageable hours. I only get holidays based on the 28.5 hours and I accept that.

I would suggest she speaks to her HR department about the possibility of a full time contract but again, it depends what the company's financial situation is. It's better to work the overtime as and when it's available than to risk losing a job all together because they decide they can't afford a full time person. It's easier said than done but you should never rely on overtime and as such all my out goings are based on my basic salary, just in case.

Not sure if she is forced as such, she is quite happy working the hours because of the money.....However, she is on a 3 month probationary period and you get the feeling a lack of 'enthusiasm' to work the extra hours may be looked on unfavourably.

I'm sure she would love to work the full time hours permanantly and you get the impression that the company would like her to continue doing so, it just seems unfair that holiday-wise, she would be getting stiched up.