Removing shift allowance after 10 years

[Jason Acres]

I work a 37 hours week in a managerial role within property services.
additional to my normal duties, I form part of a rota system with my security team allowing the company to save money on employing additional resources.
For this I receive shift allowance at a rate of 20% and have done so for the last 10 years.

Recently, another employee within our management structure has discovered that I earn shift allowance and complained that they do not, despite not forming part of a shift structure. As a result I have been advised that my shift allowance will stop and that i will not longer be required to complete shifts. Yet I simply cannot afford to lose 20% of my income that I have received for 10 years.

As stated above, the reason for forming part of a shift structure was to save money on employing additional resource, and so removing it will not be financially beneficial to the company. I also do not have colleagues at an equal tier within the management structure that are disadvantaged by my additional earnings and so there is no benefit to removing my allowance for that reason.

I'm growing exceedingly stressed in trying to work out this situation and prevent me from losing money which will impact on my ability to pay my bills. Who can afford to lose 20% of their salary they have relied on for 10 years?

Please help.

 

[Mr D]

So you received an allowance for doing shifts.

Now they are stopping the shifts and you are losing the allowance?

If you cannot work for that employer any more with your reduced wage then another job should be found. Or stick with them and look at adding additional income elsewhere.

Or change expenses to match your income. There's a charity called StyepChange, good for debt advice and they can help if a plan needs to be made for debts.

 

[Jason Acres]

So you received an allowance for doing shifts.

Now they are stopping the shifts and you are losing the allowance?

If you cannot work for that employer any more with your reduced wage then another job should be found. Or stick with them and look at adding additional income elsewhere.

Or change expenses to match your income. There's a charity called StyepChange, good for debt advice and they can help if a plan needs to be made for debts.

Hi - They're not stopping the shifts, simply removing me from the shift pattern at no benefit to them [financially or morally] in fact they will have to spend more on additional resource without me covering as part of my duties. I dont think its a case of simply finding another job, i think there is some wrong doing here as without any benefit to the organisation why would they feel the need other than as a personal attack on me?

 

[Mr D]

So you are stopping doing the shifts - so you won't be paid for that.

Not sure where there is wrongdoing. Perhaps some of our HR experts may know.

 

[paulears]

isn't this just a version of the removal of regular overtime? The extra isn't contracted is it? So it's just a regular 'extra'. like when people try to get a mortgage and regular overtime is not taken into consideration because it can end with no warning. So you're not having your contract changed against your will, just the extras stopped, but with a reduction of hours. I'm not expert by any means, but it does sound like it's something they can, and have done.

 

[simon field]

The same thing happened to us recently, we were pretty busy - then Covid hit and we weren’t quite as busy.

So we had reduce our blokes hours by 10 every week. They all were worse off by well upwards of £100 a week. It wasn’t easy, it isn’t easy, but we really hope they don’t try to screw us over in some sort of entitled revenge!

 

[Rebecca_J_T]

Hi there. So the question here is really whether these shifts could be considered to form part of your employment contract. If they were written in, or if there was a verbal agreement at some point that can be evidenced, then that’s straight-forward. Your employer cannot unilaterally remove the shifts, in the same way as they cannot unilaterally reduce your working hours.

If it’s less clear than that, you might still have an argument that it’s become an implied contract term given that you’ve worked it for such a long time. Your argument would be that the situation is such that 1) you’ve come to rely on the arrangement (as you would other terms of the contract), and 2) it was reasonable for you to have done so (I’m sure you have a list of reasons that it was reasonable for you to have relied on those addition shifts that you could articulate to your employer.)

To be honest, I wouldn’t get distracted at this point by whether removing you from the shift pattern is advantageous to the business or whether your being part of it is disadvantageous to anyone else. I’d focus on whether your participation could be said to be custom and practice/an implied contract term that you’ve relied on.

I’m not clear on whether your employer is consulting with you on this change, but if not, I would request a consultation meeting so that you can set out your point of view as above. Most reasonable employers will be open to that.

 

[Financial-Modeller]

Excellent advice from @Rebecca_J_T, and from a practical perspective, presumably, somebody asked why the company is paying a manager's rate of pay for a security job which doesn't require a manager's skill set, which seems reasonable.

Will the work that you will no longer do, be:
1. shared among those in your security team - at a lower cost, or
2. be done by somebody who will be recruited (internally or outsourced), or
3. not be done as the needs of the organisation have changed during the last 10 years

The answer to that may inform the value placed on the work that you have been doing from the perspective of your employer and help with any negotiation.