contract wording says greater than

LegacyUser

Hello I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or into on this. My contract say greater than 35 but less than full time hours. My argument with my employer is that I should be getting minimum 36 hours because it states greater than 35. Am I wrong? They say no they don't have to but I don't trust them anymore! If anyone could help it would be great. Also I was quoted not to be a prick over one hour but it would make a huge difference long term. Thanks.

livedadream

Minimum: 35 hours one minute.

ie: anything greater than 35 hours.
ie: they will not pay you less than 35 hours

If you dont trust them leave.

I dont understand the rest of your post.

Roselm

They are also being a prick over one hour!!

livedadream

how are they being a 'prick' over one hour? you signed a contract entitling you to 35 or more hours work but no more than 39. (from my reading of the situation anyway)

you are getting what you agreed too.


If your employer is being 'a prick' find a new job, and don't enter into a legal agreement with someone and then change your mind.

Roselm

livedadream wrote: »

how are they being a 'prick' over one hour? you signed a contract entitling you to 35 or more hours work but no more than 39. (from my reading of the situation anyway)

you are getting what you agreed too.


If your employer is being 'a prick' find a new job, and don't enter into a legal agreement with someone and then change your mind.

You know I wrote that last post and not the op?
His contract says "more than 35" NOT "35 or more"...

CIARAN_BOYLE

Roselm wrote: »

You know I wrote that last post and not the op?
His contract says "more than 35" NOT "35 or more"...

OP is a guest, it could be you for all we know. I'm not the OP and I'm also not livedadream but from my reading greater than 35 is 35 and one minute but I wouldn't be a prick over 1 minute and they don't have to pay for a minute.

LegacyUser

That's my answer anyway cheers. its the way the contract was worded a few of us in work are in the same both the contracts are worded like 25 to 30 hrs per week, 30 to 35 hrs per week and then greater than 35 hours and less than full time. Full time is 45... What I meant by the prick thing was what a manager said to me. They agreed that greater than 35 is 36 and if I wanted to be a prick and fight them over one hour. Thanks for your opinions

livedadream

Anonymous contract wrote: »

That's my answer anyway cheers. its the way the contract was worded a few of us in work are in the same both the contracts are worded like 25 to 30 hrs per week, 30 to 35 hrs per week and then greater than 35 hours and less than full time. Full time is 45... What I meant by the prick thing was what a manager said to me. They agreed that greater than 35 is 36 and if I wanted to be a prick and fight them over one hour. Thanks for your opinions

if a manger called you a prick, report him to HR or his manager.

Language like that in the workplace is unacceptable.

livedadream

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

OP is a guest, it could be you for all we know. I'm not the OP and I'm also not livedadream but from my reading greater than 35 is 35 and one minute but I wouldn't be a prick over 1 minute and they don't have to pay for a minute.

what he said.

purly because you said they are beigna prick over one hour,

their not,

let me break it down for you:

you do to mcdonalds, you ask for chicken chow mein, the girl at the counter says oh this is mcdonalds, we dont do that. when you came in here you knew it was mcdonalds. you can get all this stuff on the menu buts its mcdonalds food not chinese.

are they a prick?

no, the OP signed a contract, agreed to it, read it, signed it. now they are complaining.

no go. no deal, do no pass go do not collect €200. game over. they agreed their employer is not a prick, the op should have asked before they signed if they were unsure.

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

if a manger called you a prick, report him to HR or his manager.

Language like that in the workplace is unacceptable.

Sez who?

I'd agree that it's unacceptable in front of a customer.

But to an employee who's making a fuss over the difference between 35 hours and 35:01, I'd say it's quite possibly justified.

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sez who?

I'd agree that it's unacceptable in front of a customer.

But to an employee who's making a fuss over the difference between 35 hours and 35:01, I'd say it's quite possibly justified.

eh, says me?

if i heard one of my colleagues calling another colleague a prick, id throttle them.

while i agree that arguing over one minute is ridiculous, its not appropriate to speak to colleague like that.

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

if i heard one of my colleagues calling another colleague a prick, id throttle them.

I guess the irony of that is lost on ya ....

gozunda

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sez who?

I'd agree that it's unacceptable in front of a customer.

But to an employee who's making a fuss over the difference between 35 hours and 35:01, I'd say it's quite possibly justified.

The would be classified as verbal abuse and most likley be an violation of most employer guidelines / terms of references ref. Obscene language / treatment of co-worker etc.

I don't know any sector were such behaviour could be 'possibly justified' ...

:rolleyes:

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I guess the irony of that is lost on ya ....

A HR throttle :-)

a nice sit down with a cup of tea and your union rep, nothing formal just a chat, depending on the person maybe even just a quick chat in the hall...

asking you do you think that kind of language is appropriate or necessary?

that im sure it was a slip of the tongue, that you were tired and stressed and the person was winding you up but that really calling a subordinate a 'prick' is not really how things are done here.

id explain that you are an intelligent human being and that calling your colleagues a 'prick' or anything along those lines to their face is probably not the best way to either manage or motivate your staff and is demeaning to not only them but to you as well.

and that as an adult you are perfectly free to call whomever you wish a prick for whatever reason, as long as it stays in your mind and out of the workplace

That while I am not recording the meeting or the issue that I would hope the behaviour would not continue but that if the individual was to make a complaint that there would be very little i could do about it so an apology would be a great way to show your remorse.

:-)

BreadnBuddha

It is a bit foolish for the manager to refer to you "being a prick over an hour".

The fact is that companies who contract staff on varying numbers of hours are hardly a long term prospect for happy employment by any reasonable measure.

You should ask yourself, if the difference between 35 and 36 hours pay a week "would make a huge difference long term", should you be putting more time into getting a better job?

If an hours pay was 'make or break' for me I'd know something was seriously wrong and I sure as hell wouldn't be thinking about how it will impact me long term.

CruelCoin

Roselm wrote: »

You know I wrote that last post and not the op?
His contract says "more than 35" NOT "35 or more"...

Greater than 35 means 35 hours and one second, and higher.

It says nothing about counting time in solid hour blocks.

The OP is getting precisely what he signed up to.