Hi Jenny, globally you are on the right track. Future conditions for new startes will have to include this requirement (and any associated payments) and you will have to consult with existing staff to bring about modifications to existing contracts. Most IT people understand that providing 24 hours cover is necessary (lost of upgrades/migrations run overnight for example) - but you will still need to give them a convincing explanation for what has changed to necessitate the change now.

Work closely with your IT manager in identifying the skills profiles that will be required and the frequency of cover that staff will have to give. Equally, consult with the US team to understand the expecations so as to be able to appropriately calibrate the coverage. 

In these situations you have two types of activity to compensate:

• standby/on-call, when the person has to be available and maybe handle a problem from home by logging in remotely, or by phone;
• call-out, when the person needs to be physically present in the office (machine has died and physically needs rebooting for example)

You can roll these up into a single payment if call-outs are rare or problems can be solved remotely in a very short time:; alternatively if call-outs are likely to be frequent, you may want to make additional payments for this aspect. Model these in simulations using the assumptions that your IT team should supply -  if you don't you can end up paying lots of money for people who are never called, or alternatively receiving lots of complaints from people who don't think they are adequately compensated for frequent call-outs.

Ray

In reply to Ray:

The other issues (following Ray helpful advice) you will have to consider are:

The Working Time Regulations - how you will allow compensatory rest for those employees whose nights are disrupted. How you will manage working time in general. How you ensure a safe operating model

How realistic it really is to provide some form of help line (if that indeed is what it is) for a HQ based in USA from on-call employees based in UK/Germany. What level of calls do you anticipate and given the time difference is 5H+ (6h+ for Germany) how sustainable do you think this solution will be?

Will one level of support be required or will you require an escalation point? If so how will you achieve that?

How easy it will be to persuade your current staff that working evening/nights on call is a "good idea" and this will partly depend on remuneration - what happens if no one wants to do it?

I wouldn't necessarily seek to be re-issuing contracts or even giving new starters a new contract to cover this. Administratively, I would see this as only needing a separate letter to all current employees to inform them of the change, and then putting up a standing instruction or procedure statement to inform all future employees. This way, if changes are needed, you only need to amend the standing instruction rather than, yet again, sending everyone new contract documents.

However, strategically and legally, this is a substantive change in terms and conditions so is going to need to be consulted upon. The biggest question your leaders will need to answer is "how much are we prepared to pay people to fulfill this new task for us?" The bigger the number, the easier the consultations will be.

Traditionally, there are four ways to approach on-call payments:

1. Everyone is on the rota. You only get paid if you get called out, but you get an enhanced rate of overtime.

2. Everyone is on the rota. You get paid a modest fixed fee for being on-call then overtime if you're called out.

3. Everyone is on the rota. You get paid a generous fixed fee for being on-call, whether you are called out or not.

4. Only volunteers are on the rota. They get paid handsomely (usually with a salary increment) for being on-call.

My company currently uses a mixture of 2 (for technical and support roles), 3 (for unskilled roles) and 4 (for the senior managers).

In reply to Ray:

Thank you very much, this is very helpful!

Whether there is a requirement to consult or not misses a little of the 'human element'.
I guess most of us would not be too happy if some one from higher up the food chain simply told us without explanation or consultation that we were now required to work outside our normal existing hours. Its only polite to do so... ;-)

In reply to Keith:

Thank you very much for this - I think the issue we may have is that if we have an employee who doesn't want to do it and is more concerned of the ramifications of refusing or not agreeing to it. The standpoint from our US team is that it should be mandatory as they need the additional support. Thanks for your help!

In reply to David Perry:

100% Agree!

In reply to Jenny :

You are changing their contract significantly. Therefore you need to consult with a view to reach agreement. If after meaningful consultation you can not reach agreement then you could "consider" imposing the change by firing employee and offering them immediate rehiring. This is a risky strategy and success would depend on how important / essential the change is and how meaningfully you have consulted and sought to reach agreement. As you are dismissing the employees maybe able to bring an unfair dismissal claim against you if they have more than two years service.

The employment situation in the USA is very very different and US Execs often struggle to get their heads around how challenging it can be to make these changes.

In reply to Keith:

Agreed, it is definitely challenging keeping all parties happy!