W
In your original post you say your contract says "compensated for being on-call by way of time in lieu" - if this is the case then there won't be a problem with the 48 hour average maximum.
I may well be wrong on this, but I thought the legislation meant that a single employer can't require an employee to work more than 48 hours a week for an extended period. So as I understand it, if an employee takes an additional position, the first employer is not required to take any account of the additional hours being worked by the employee in the second job.
Is the entitlement to 24 hours off in 7 days not in relation to a single employer as opposed to an employee working for more than one employer? In other words, WhiteVanMan, I can't see how the fact that you are working 8.5 hours for a second employer needs to be taken account of by your main employer. He is not asking you to work - for him - more than you are legally permitted.
I may well be wrong on this, but I thought the legislation meant that a single employer can't require an employee to work more than 48 hours a week for an extended period. So as I understand it, if an employee takes an additional position, the first employer is not required to take any account of the additional hours being worked by the employee in the second job.
Organisation of Working Time Act said:15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—
(a) 4 months...
Organisation of Working Time Act said:33.—(1) An employer shall not employ an employee to do any work in a relevant period during which the employee has done work for another employer, except where the aggregate of the periods for which such an employee does work for each of such employers respectively in that relevant period does not exceed the period for which that employee could, lawfully under this Act, be employed to do work for one employer in that relevant period.
...
(4) Where an employer is prosecuted for an offence under this section it shall be a good defence for him or her to prove—
(a) that he or she neither knew nor could by reasonable enquiry have known that the employee concerned had done work for any other employer in the period of 24 hours, 7 days or 12 months, as the case may be, in respect of which the prosecution is brought
I'm a great believer in ignoring the working time act. As you are not a child you should be allowed to work whatever hours you freely choose to work as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others. The state has no business restricting your right to work...
If, however, you want to use the working time act to get yourself out of overtime that you contractually signed up for you may get away with it. I don't see how your main employer will be happy about it. It certainly won't do your prospects any good.
You got the wrong end of that; I'm against the state treating people like children. I'm not being sarcastic; I am in favour of ignoring the working time act.Good troll. Did anybody ever tell you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?
No high horse here. I've had two pay cuts (that I gave myself) after not pay increase for 6 years.Get off your high horse. Yeah, it's my fault my pay has been reduced due to "the economy", and that I've been forced to work a second job.
I'd say there's very few.I wonder how many employers are using "the economy" to get themselves out of paying the wage the employee contractually signed up for?
Why?Maybe I should have quit my main job, waited six weeks and signed on the dole/collected rent allowance to support my family...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?