24

Pay in lieu of annual leave & accrued working hours during transition

We are a small charity with a very inexperienced board (trustees/committee of management). We have experienced a difficult 2-3 years of churn and have had a low grade employee acting up for us as manager.

In this time the organisation has grown considerably, but we as a board have failed to bring to pass the necessary organisational restructuring required to take us forward.

We have many grant funders and have not had sufficient numbers of staff to work on our projects. As a result the acting manager has worked excessive hours (55hrs/week normal but sometimes weeks have been as much as 85hrs). The acting manager has been paid 40 hours per week as part of her standard contract under the grant but has had to work on other grants to bring them to completion because we have not allowed additional people to be employed during this period. The acting manager has process all other staff overtime regularly but 6 months ago she gave us her overtime hours. Naturally we knew they worked long hours but it came as a shock that this amounted to £13k. All evidence is there that they have done the work, but we felt uncomfortable with the amount given the annual wage is £19k.

Once the projects were completing the acting manager provide their annual leave and expenses.

The annual leave has been approved and carried over for the last 3 years with all staff have had some annual leave carry over but the acting manager has more than their annual leave entitlement for the year still to take. We as a committee discussed and agreed to pay half and for half to be carried over and used this year.

The expenses were over £1.5k and dated back well over a year back up with all receipts and records to show these were genuine. We couldn't throw stones as we ourselves were late with our expenses.

The chair at the time who didn't agree with decisions then brought in an HR consultant who then advised and blocked all decisions we'd made to date. Stating the following-

HR Decisions:-

1.) It's illegal to pay an employee in lieu of holidays. We understood that we couldn't force the acting manager to take the money but thought it was the most sensible option and our employee agreed to it.

2.) Despite agreeing in principle to pay the additional worked hours because they were in line and budget with grant funds restrictions. The HR and Chair blocked this decision and said there was no contract in place and no specific letters or emails confirming overtime would be approved. Plus the acting manager is awarding more work to themself than any other employee. True but we didn't have other options in place. And no employee asked for more additional work. Now I fear we could be in financial mismanagement as we have already reported back to the funder that we have paid the staff.

3.) The HR said that the policy for expenses was being abused by the acting manager as they were not operating within the standard timescales. However, when we were late with expenses they were approved (all be it they are much smaller amounts).  

HR and Chair did this through informal meetings that they didn't give any warning to the acting manager about, nor opportunity for accompanyment. Upon hearing the decision our acting manager asked for all investigatory information to seek understanding of the reversed decisions. Nothing was provided. The manager repeatedly asked for mediation- but HR and Chair refused.

Aside from that we've witnessed the Chair bully and harass the acting manager even publically and ourselves when we raise concern. It just seems so unfair.

We recruited for a permanent manager and given the current situation and treatment our then acting manager didn't apply for the post. Now the ex acting manager is off sick. And has stated that she intends to raise a grievance and go through to Tribunal if necessary. As a result the new manager has changed the locks to the offices and email password of the ex acting manager so as to prevent them gathering sufficient evidence.

We have received letters now claiming-

1.) Excessive working hours- breech of WTR. For hours worked and limited annual leave.

2.) Unlawful deduction of wages.

3.) Failure to pay legitimate expenses.

4.) Being underpaid for acting up. New Manager is now on £32k. Requesting an additional £13k. Supporting this as they were also paid 30% less than some employees they were managing. So at the very least it would be £5k.

5.) Bullying and harassment.

6.) Coercion and conspiracy from Chair, HR and an employee (friend of Chair)- that they have been treated unfairly and unreasonably.

7.) Accused of financial mismanagement of funds.

£16.5k initially asked for has now went up to £35k compensation settlement, plus we are paying them while they are sick.

We are really unsure now of what to do. The HR consultant advised that it was voluntary work and unauthorised, deductions will now be time barred, no requirement to pay expenses and the employee is unlikely to have proof. However I know there have been further wage deductions in the last months of work requested on other contracts.

Also, the HR consultant has been picking up additional payments for recruitment and policies and will get more if grievance, appeals, tribunals happen. So we'll be paying for that to.

A.) Did the HR consultant act appropriately?

It seems like they have come in to be the Chair's bouncer and the advice they gave us and how they prosented it didn't give us any option, but now it doesn't seem as legal as they claimed.

B.) Is it legal to mutually agree with pay in lieu of annual leave with an employee, particularly after the annual leave period has passed?

C.) Is it illegal to pay staff over and above their contract when they appear to have done it for the good of the organisation without a contract or written correspondence to confirm?

D.) Is it illegal to pay expenses which are late and past the accepted period when we have already stretched this for our own needs?

E.) I thought the role of HR was to inform and see procedures and followed not to influence decisions and block employees with a dispute seeking a resolution. Is that true or do you work in other capacities?

1164 views
  • In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

    Elizabeth, thanks for the update. I hear what Keith has written from the commission for charities that we are equally responsible for the decisions and governance of the charity. I consider he is saying if those in the board who are unhappy with the decisions the Chair is making stand up and bring in the charities commission if needed. Or if you aren't willing to do so then it's better to stand down and resign if this isn't your fight.
    What in particular did you not agree with in Keith's statement?
  • Quick update on pay...
    We had an acting up manager/CEO for 2 years. The worker's rate of pay was not increased in line with additional responsibility and complexity of the tasks. They did receive the inflation annual adjustment, like all other staff. However they were still managing others who were paid 30% more than them for supportive roles (which are not specialist), but who are family and friend to the Chair. Could they make a claim for this? Should we have paid them a more suitable rate when interim went past our 3 month projected restructuring deadline?

    The person in post beforehand was paid £28k (top of their pay scale and experiences). We've then brought in someone new and HR consultants told us to advertise at top end to attract more candidates and reduce the essential requirements. We're now paying an inexperienced manager in a field of work they are inexperienced in the top scale (£32k), and we only paid Acting or Interim Manager £19k who was inexperienced in management, but experienced in the field. The acting manager has asked to be compensated for 'acting up' and requested a sum of £12k for the 2 years which would have them on the lower levels of the pay scale. To make matters worse in my mind the worker is still only on the middle to lower end of their current scale and has never received a step up in scale in the 3+ years they have worked for us. When they did ask for a pay increase their scale seems to have been lost and now they've only received 3 inflation payments, so the difference in their hourly rate keeps getting wider compared to their other employees. They were meant to have a review after 6-months and put on the appropriate band, which was supposed to be top of their scale. We held of on deciding on this until after restructuring, however things seem to have become lost and now we're still underpaying this worker.

    It's getting harder and harder to see a way forward.
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    12 Dec, 2017 13:36

    In reply to Interested:

    Hi 'Interested'...

    I've just removed a post you made to this thread about this 'acting up' claim / issue. I've let the anonymity thing pass this time - but only if we can keep to this one discussion... and avoid duplication / confusion. 

    Many thanks.

  • In reply to Interested:

    I said that I was afraid I *did* agree with Keith's comment. I phrased it like that because it means you are potentially carrying the can for any governance issues, and I do see governance issues here.
  • In reply to Steve Bridger:

    Hi Steve,
    Thank you.
  • In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

    Oh, sorry for my mistake Elizabeth. Lesson learned- don't read messages from your phone when at lunch and trying to reply quickly.
    Many Thanks.
  • In reply to Interested:

    Pay is generally a contractual matter between employer and employee. So unless there is a contractual right to an acting up allowance or a contractual right to increased pay while performing these duties then a claim is difficult to bring. If they weren't happy they should have raised it then and either negotiated a higher rate and/or stepped down from the acting up role.

    However you (corporately) seem to have exploited them - deliberately or not. So in answer to your two different questions

    Could they make a claim for this? - Probably not
    Should we have paid them a more suitable rate - almost certainly

    The exception would be where the reason for the lower rate of pay was linked to their gender (or some other protected characteristic). If the previous CEO was Male, the new CEO was male and they happened to be female then there is at least an argument for equal pay or that the reason for the discrepancy was down to sex discrimination. It would then be over to you to pay up or prove it wasn't. Your counter argument would be that this was a temporary role while you reorganised - I think this would wear thin on the Tribunal.

    The other avenue would be a claim for constructive dismissal etc...but that boat has I think sailed

    As colleagues have said I think your Chair and your "HR Consultant" aren't acting necessarily in the best interests of the charity (based on what you have told us). You and your fellow Trustees are going along with this at the moment. Therefore you are complicit - change it or move on would be my strong advice.

    I was once in a similar situation - I spent five years helping an organisation grown and develop (pro bono) - but when the Chair and CEO took the organisation down a path that I felt was fundamentally wrong and I stopped being able to influence them I had no hesitation in resigning. Sadly my intuition was correct.
  • In reply to Interested:

    Hi there,

    I currently sit on the board of a charity, and I'd add one additional element to all the excellent advise colleagues have already provided.

    Your charity has received funding for this work to have been undertaken. It has been undertaken by this individual, and now the Chair is seeking to not pay out that received funding for that work.

    I don't bandy the word 'fraud' around often but I'd be inclined to in this situation - to underline to your Chair and their HR support just how serious the ramifications of their decision is. Should word get back to your funders that this is how you operate, I suspect your funding would dry up immediately and your Chair - along with other members of the board - may even find themselves facing legal proceedings.
  • In reply to Keith:

    For what it's worth, I really can't see anything changing for the better unless or until this organisation gets rid of this seemingly-incompetent HR Consultant.

    They might have been paid for a full years work upfront ( in itself usually unnecessary / unwise - why was this considered necessary? ) but if ditched now at least the organisation will be free from their erroneous input and from paying any extra for it.

    It might even be possible to sue them for giving your organisation dud advice, depending on the exact evidence available but even if this isn't feasible, it seems very clear that the organisation would still be far better off without them.