25th September 2008, 05:23 PM
This is going back a bit and quoting my own posting but I was reading BAJR's response to the IFA consultation with regard to advertising and the JIS made me think of this again...
If a company advertises on BAJR (or anywhere else) that they do an X hour week, and then it turns out that this regularly involves unpaid overtime, particularly travelling several hours to a site, doing a full day then travelling back, should they be allowed to get away with what is clearly a false statement in their advert? It is effectively the same as advertising a specific pay scale to meet BAJR's criteria and then coming up with some reason to pay less when the job is actually awarded. Just a thought... after all doing 38 hours a week for £15,000 does not equal the same as doing 50 hours per week for the same amount now does it? If some form of TOIL is offered that is fair enough, but is it in some cases?
[/quote]
This scenario is exactly why so many employers started offering accomodation near to the site! and may have fallen foul of the Revnue.....
Some offer TOIL, some offer overtime, or a shorter day on site (some only to the driver for all of these) and some don't offer any at all. And the overtime can be plain time.
The details are often in the contract (e.g. if travel time to site is less than half an hour you don't get compensation) and once again often take account of the Revenue's rules on pay/expenses. Of course, the fact that many people don't get given a copy of their contract/terms and conditions/staff handbook is often an issue.
It's the sort of thing I ask when I'm offered a job. (I would point out, however, that very many people regularly travel over an hour each way, unpaid, to their place of work!)
edited due to beinf incapable of stringing a sensible sentence together!