Whirlpool

OK so been working my first full-time/1st out of Uni job for a couple months now but didn't meet our main HR person till last week so we got kinda of a "2nd orientation". One thing she seemed surprised about was how our time reporting was based on 37.5hr week, 7.5 hours per day, and not the expected 8 hours per day. And just yesterday we got a little auto e-mail on our overtime (which for us goes into Time Off) which we worked out to be based on an 8 hour day – some guy had negative Time Off, LOL!

But at the meeting last week she acknowledged (admitted?) that our contracts/letter-of-offers said 37.5 hours "for legal reasons" as the standard working week here.

Anyway, I have no knowledge (or would want any) of legal mumbo jumbo but to untrained law person like myself isn't this blatantly dodgy if not illegal?

Just wondering anyway ...

how long do you take for lunch ?

I'm pretty sure legally during a 40 hour week, they need to include your lunch breaks which is the 2.5 hours...

My actual working hours are 7.3 hours per day with a 0.7 paid lunch break...This reflects on my pay slip...For my time sheets, I always have to put in 7.3 hours...

it's neither dodgy, nor illegal, but standard operating procedure for most workplaces. you don't get paid to take lunch breaks, therefore assuming you have a half hour lunch break, that's perfectly legal.

It's an 8 hour day (9.00am to 5.00pm for example), but you get a ½ hour off for lunch (unpaid) and this leaves 7.5 hours of working time. Quite standard.

dufflover writes...

But at the meeting last week she acknowledged (admitted?) that our contracts/letter-of-offers said 37.5 hours "for legal reasons" as the standard working week here

I meet very few HR people who know the slightest thing about law beyond a big of OH&S policy so I wouldn't take legal advice from any of them.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but if you contract says 37.5 hours, and you're working 37.5 hours, then you get paid your full salary. If they're docking you leave for not working 40 hours then they're idiots. My contract says 38 hours, I work 38 hours, I get paid 38 hours. I can take half hour lunch or two hour lunch it doesn't matter, as long as I work the hours in the contract.

Edit: I've worked places where we worked 40 hours, were paid 37.5, and every 4 weeks you've accrued an RDO thanks to those extra 2.5 hours. This is great as long as you're getting the opportunities to take those RDOs.

If they are docking you time off because your not working 40 hours when your contract says you work 37.5 they are in the wrong.

Your main break will be out of their paying hours, generally half an hour to an hour a day.

So if your 'accruing' -2.5 hours of leave a week as they are judging it on a 40 hour week they are in the wrong.

(8 hr day – 0.5 hr lunch)*5 = 37.5hr.

I personally see nothing wrong with a 40hr working week: 9-5:30 with a half hour break. I've often worked this, or slightly longer, in the past.

But this isn't what was signed up for. 37.5 hrs, and it appears that they are timed by the minute. In this case, the OP has a valid point. Forget about the excuse "for legal reasons".

Go back to HR and ask for a 7% payrise as you are now expected to do 7% more hours.

Is this gov? It sounds like the HR person builds in time for TOIL( http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/industrial/family/types/employees/toil/ ) in their regular working week. This is not really the recommended practice.

Mobsta. writes...

I'm pretty sure legally during a 40 hour week, they need to include your lunch breaks which is the 2.5 hours

Not sure that's right. My employment contract states 40 hours plus minimum half hour/maximum one hour for lunch. We all have to do 8 hours plus lunchtime...effectively an 8:30am-5pm work day.

If your contract states 37.5 hr is a standard working week then overtime is anything beyond this. How they reimburse you beyond that is between you and your employer, however, for them to reduce your leave/pay because your timesheet says 37.5 hours and they work on 8 for overtime then they are breaking the law.
You should raise this with HR and/or your manager and see where it gets you. If you get no satisfaction from them you should contact the Workplace Authority.

racka writes...

Not sure that's right. My employment contract states 40 hours plus minimum half hour/maximum one hour for lunch. We all have to do 8 hours plus lunchtime...effectively an 8:30am-5pm work day.

Agreed. As far as I'm aware, lunch is never included in the working hours.

In private industry I've typically worked a standard 8hrs + 0.5/1hr lunch each day, equating to 40 'paid' hours a week.

one writes...

As far as I'm aware, lunch is never included in the working hours.

Is this always the case? When reporting my hours to my employer, I don't exclude lunch (which is anywhere from 15 – 40 minutes). This is standard practice here; I imagined it was elsewhere too!

My partner works 37.5 h/w at full time rate although the company claims all staff that are on 37.5 hour weeks are classed as part-time.
The salary and annual leave would be pro-rata based on a 38 hour week and rounded up so in terms of pay there is little difference.
However, depending on the type of employment (AWA/award/etc) there can be major differences between full time and part time for other entitlements including sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, long service leave and termination notice period.

I think the main reason for it lies in the way the company organises its workforce and accounting practices.

Cutting half an hour in order to exploit a loophole and stiff your employees simply isn't cricket.

Sedate Alien writes...

Is this always the case? When reporting my hours to my employer, I don't exclude lunch (which is anywhere from 15 – 40 minutes). This is standard practice here; I imagined it was elsewhere too!

There is a difference between reporting your lunch break and being paid for your lunch break.

If you're getting paid for lunch you are in the vast minority.

Dudley writes...

If you're getting paid for lunch you are in the vast minority

My dad used to work at a place that had a paid .5 hour lunch break. It was 8 hour day with a "Happy day" day off every 4 weeks. I dunno if they still do that though, he retired a while ago now.

Funkstick writes...

My dad used to work at a place that had a paid .5 hour lunch break.

Good for him. He's in the vast minority.

Dudley writes...

Good for him. He's in the vast minority.

In our town he was in the vast majority :) Biggest employer and all.

racka writes...

Not sure that's right.

Oh sorry I guess not legally then...but yeah I guess its just a policy at my workplace...

Just to clarify, lunches are not included (though my mates include it anyway even though you're not supposed to). What you report is what you worked, so if you put in 40 hours you've worked 40 hours, not an assumption of 37.5 + lunch.

And in my current mate's case, yes it appears he is being docked for working less than 40 hours.

Pretty crap companies if you don't get paid for lunch. I get paid for all meal breaks. (Lunch and Tea)

Pretty crap companies if you don't get paid for lunch. I get paid for all meal breaks. (Lunch and Tea)

i guess most companies are crap then...

I applied for a job (which I didn't take) which had a 37.5 hour week.

I said, "does this mean you get one day off a month??"

They said "No, you work 7.5 hours a day"

I said "Who works 7.5 hours a day?!?"

In the Manufacturing Industry, it used to be 37hrs 36 minutes a week, (37.6 hrs), and the remaining .24 minutes a day (.40 hrs) being accrued for the 2 hrs a week, for an 8 hr RDO at the end of the month.

Most employers don't pay you for the ½ or 1 hour lunch. Is this a manufacturing Company? Most management/office staff come under the main award umbrella. (Depending on the workplace of course).

i get paid for a 38 hour week. So 7.6 hours per day and .4 hours unpaid lunch break, but i get two 10 minute 'tea' breaks that are paid.

The 40 hour week died decades ago.

A company can still sign you up to a contract that requires you to do an 8 hour day, five days a week. But in this case they haven't. Their contracts say 37.5 hours. But whoever stands up for their legal rights will be victimised, one way or another.

Ever thought of joining a union, so you can call the union rep – someone the company can't victimise – to tell them that they can't do that.

dufflover – how many hours do you get paid for? Is it dependant on what you put down on your timesheet?

At our work, everyone gets paid 7.6 hours a day (we don't do timesheets – its done automatically)...if you want to take a 30 minute lunch or 1 hour it doesn't matter...you work 7.6 hours and thats what you get paid for ; )

We pay a 38hr week. Its just expected you do a 7.5hr day 4 days a week and then an 8hr day 1 day of the week. (8.30-5pm with 1 hr break 4 days, 30 min break 1 day), although we pay on a 7.6per day basis when it comes to salaried, so it doesnt really matter.

If you choose to work 40 hrs you will still only get paid for the 38, and if you work 38hrs and and have 2 hrs off sick, they will most likely dock you for it, unless you have agreed to make it up within your department.

Many of the higher salaried staff work 45-60 hours a week though and get paid for 38hrs with no time in lieu, though their salaries are well compensated.

ĶeFuaŋ writes...

if you work 38hrs and and have 2 hrs off sick, they will most likely dock you for it

Why are they docking people who worked 38 hours?

How can you be salaried and be docked for taking time off ?

They will dock people who work 38hrs because, say you work 8.30 – 5 everyday and that works out to 38 with the breaks i listed above. You might work back till 7 one day , but that doesnt entitle you to taking off 2hrs during the time that was specified, if that makes sense.

Its pretty stupid, i work in the head office and my boss is good and lets me work around my hours, but others arent so lucky.

NotaCarrot writes...

How can you be salaried and be docked for taking time off ?

im not sure if you mean the above which i covered, but the policy written into system for salaried people is 38hrs – leave. we arent auto paying all our people because the amount of staff that never do the full 38week is so high.

being in retail aswell, there is so much turnover, so many transfers, that autopays arent really functional. But i see a few cases where managers do say, 42hours, though they are paid for 38 only, and then they might have half a day sick (say 4 hours), and they get paid for 34, 4 sick leave.

cant say they are expected to work 42, but u never get out at 5pm in a retail setting with the customers lingering around your store.

majorbiff writes...

My partner works 37.5 h/w at full time rate although the company claims all staff that are on 37.5 hour weeks are classed as part-time.

I don't think that is correct. They are full time as they are working more that , I think, 30 hours, but maybe classified as casual.

My mate who had negative time-off (for doing less than 40 hours total a week) has got a reply – the standard hours for our "workforce" is 40 hours/8 hours a day. We're probably going to talk to our project managers to see what to do. And we're just talking now if we should bother replying saying it's in the contract and time reporting program, but probably not cos you know it's never good if gets to the "waving the contract" stage.

Some of you will know where I work from other threads and/or TPR but no one say it, just to keep this neat and tidy :P.

dufflover writes...

the standard hours for our "workforce" is 40 hours/8 hours a day

Work a shift length of 8 hours, but take half for lunch. That works out to be 40 hours on the deck, but only 37.5 working.

Perhaps the HR manager means that? For example, they expect you to start at 9am, leave at 5pm, but have a lunch for 0.5 hours??

Basically there's a conflict in their systems. It could be he assumes 40 hours with 0.5hr lunch each day, but that contradicts the official timings because if report 40 hours work, it says you've worked 2.5 hours over time.

Dudley writes...

If you're getting paid for lunch you are in the vast minority.

I did have a short term job as paid for ½hr lunch many years ago. This was for 7½ hrs work on an 8hr paid day.

The boss there did point out me as to be paid for lunch as so rare, just about the one or two in the world to get paid for eating.

Well, I didn't like the job and left for something else.

Do people think I said "there's no such thing as a job that pays you for lunch" or something?

Dudley writes...

Do people think I said "there's no such thing as a job that pays you for lunch" or something?

There was such a thing, very rare though.

I know you've implied a vast minority and I was one of them just for once. I never like it though.

The lunch break was too rushed, out and back into the office.

Jason_68 writes...

Work a shift length of 8 hours, but take half for lunch. That works out to be 40 hours on the deck, but only 37.5 working.

I was like that, 40 hours paid and only 37.5 working.

For example, they expect you to start at 9am, leave at 5pm, but have a lunch for 0.5 hours??

They expected me to work from 8am to 4pm and lunch for ½hr.

This is the usual standard, 9 to 5 and not to be paid for the lunch time.

Dudley writes...

every 4 weeks you've accrued an RDO

Same there at that place, an RDO a month.

dufflover writes...

if report 40 hours work, it says you've worked 2.5 hours over time.

Are you saying working extra 2½ hours all for nothing as not supposed to? Did you have lunch at all for each day?

Johnny KKK writes...

The boss there did point out me as to be paid for lunch as so rare, just about the one or two in the world to get paid for eating.

In the US being paid for eating lunch is standard practice.

Herbie writes...

In the US being paid for eating lunch is standard practice

Is that right? What do you know?

Johnny KKK writes...

Is that right? What do you know?

I meant as part of a work day of course. Considering I lived there until I was 26 and held several paid positions in both retail and IT I think I'm pretty familiar with working there. :)

racka writes...

My employment contract states 40 hours plus minimum half hour

Whoever wrote it hasn't read the Workplace Relations Act then:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wra1996220/s226.html

Gordon writes...

A company can still sign you up to a contract that requires you to do an 8 hour day, five days a week

Not unless they trade off the hours in some other way (typically an RDO every 4 weeks to account for the extra 2 hours a week)

dufflover writes...

the standard hours for our "workforce" is 40 hours/8 hours a day

Then there are three possibilities:
- That includes your meal break (which is notionally unpaid), so the paid hours are 375, or,
- They are squaring it off (eg. with an RDO once a month or similar), or,
- They're breaking the law (38 hours plus 'reasonable' overtime is in the legislation)

Herbie writes...

In the US being paid for eating lunch is standard practice.

Not in my experience (and yes, I lived and worked there for years as well).
My last job's hours were 8:15 to 5:15, with an hour lunch break. Works out to be a 40 hour week. On my payslip, it said 40 hours.

Ender writes...

- That includes your meal break

It doesn't, pretty sure anyway. The couple of guys who have been with the company longer (but still not very high up in terms of rank) all say it's 8 without lunch.

- They are squaring it off (eg. with an RDO once a month or similar), or,

Pretty sure no.

- They're breaking the law (38 hours plus 'reasonable' overtime is in the legislation)

That's what I'm wondering. Pretty sure they aren't either through some condition or legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't change it seems very dodgy practice.
Just to clarify though, at the moment with our limited time with the company (our small group of guys all started same time) the only things saying it is definitely 40 hours is word from various people, and the TOIL e-mail/calculations.

My understanding is that 8 hours a day includes the lunch. So if your lunch is one hour, your actual work is 7 hours.

This has been my experience with all my jobs.

As a side note, previously I wasn't paid for lunch but now I do.

My Employee agreement states that I work a minimum of 8:30 to 5:30 with 30 minutes unpaid lunch, other staff have similar ones that state "office hours are between 8:30 to 5:30" but for some reason mine was explicitly changed. No where does it say that we have to work 42.5 hours but it is implied and we are paid for a 42.5 hour week (exclusive of lunch breaks). To me this seems to be sitting on the fence as I am pretty sure they cant request us to work a 42.5 hours. We do get an RDO each month but only if we havent take any sick leave in previous months. We do not get any overtime or TOIL even if we are on call or work overtime.

Stev0 writes...

We do get an RDO each month but only if we havent take any sick leave in previous months. We do not get any overtime or TOIL even if we are on call or work overtime.

Man you are getting screwed.

from what i understand from the dealings with my qustionable employer is that if you work less than 38 hours in the week they dont have to pay you overtime to work weekends

thusly i get given monday off but work saturday at normal time :(

we are also required to log-in and log-out
but we dont get paid over time if we log out late
and we get pay deducted if we log in late

we are also paid 10c per hour above minimum award wage $15.60 an hour SO they dont have to pay loading on our anual leave

i have also not signed an employmet agreement nor has anyone else in the company

the it industry is awsome for this type of crud as the last company i worked for declared bankrupecy and didint pay my super for the 8 months i was there

enjoy working in the it industry

Dudley writes...

Man you are getting screwed.

yep, they are :)
where i work we get paid 7.6 hours a day and if we choose to stay back half an hour we get an rdo a month. it's up to us to keep track of how much time in lieu we have and when to use it, but the don't like us getting more than 3. we also can choose when to come in and leave, as long as we're there for 8 hours and take a half hour lunch break. fantastic conditions :)

I work an 8.5 hr shift (8am-4:30pm or 9am-5:30pm) with 1 hr lunch, with flex time.

What happens in reality is I take 0.5 hr lunches Monday to Thursday and a 1.5 hr lunch Friday. If I stick to this pattern I build up an extra 1.5 hours of flex time each week, so I get an extra day off every 5 weeks or so.

Of course in practice, the flex is... well, flexible, but we have spreadsheets which keep track of it all for us.

73.5 Hours a Fortnight for me :) (36.45 a week)

Not counting 30min unpaid lunch.

Stev0 writes...

We do get an RDO each month but only if we havent take any sick leave

I'm not sure that's legal. Doesn't it amount to discriminating against people on the basis of whatever illness caused them to take sick leave?

And if you're working 42.5 hours a week, that's more than the legislation allows for, so it has to be squared off with an RDO somewhere that gives you the equivalent of 9 hours a fortnight off.

Yeh I'm not too sure, some of my staff are pretty upset with the set hours, I have bought it up with the MD and office manager but they refuse to budge, its got to the point where some Dev's are looking elsewhere which is frustrating for me as apart from lodging a complaint with the appropriate department theres nothing I can do.

Rothguard writes...

we are also required to log-in and log-out
but we dont get paid over time if we log out late
and we get pay deducted if we log in late

Such an employer deserves no free overtime whatsoever.
Log out at 5pm and exit the building at 5.01pm.

I've dug out the old contract/letter just to double check and yes I haven't gotten anything wrong.

Standard working week is 37.5 hours a week, based on a 7.5 hour day. No mentions of breaks or lunches.

I won't use the word "illegal" cos it probably isn't (with some fancy wording if needed), but is it dodgy to say the standard week is 37.5 hours but expect a 40 standard week and only give TOIL for anything above 40 hours ... and deduct it if less than 40 hours.

dufflover writes...

is it dodgy to say the standard week is 37.5 hours but expect a 40 standard week and only give TOIL for anything above 40 hours ... and deduct it if less than 40 hours.

It depends whether you're counting your lunch breaks in the 40 hours. 5 x 30min lunch breaks accounts for the difference.

Edit: If they make you account for your lunch break and work 8 without lunch, then they're requiring you to work more hours than either your contract or the WRA allows – and you're probably entitled to have it retrospectively squared off (ie. be paid 2.5hrs overtime for the extra hours they've been demanding).

I'd speak to the workplace ombudsman.