# Working Two Jobs/Working Time/On-Call



## WhiteVanMan (21 May 2012)

Not sure if my employer reads AAM so I'm posting this under a different nom de plume to normal....

OK, I work Monday to Friday 9.00 to 17.30 for my "main" employer. Like everyone else in the country I'm struggling financially. As there's no hope getting a pay rise in this job I've had to take a second job working Saturdays 9.30 to 18.00 in an unrelated industry.

I clock up 37.5 hours in my main job and 8.5 hours in my secondary job. 46 hours in total which leaves me 2 hours shy of the maximum time I'm allowed work.

The thing is that my "main" employer is expecting me to pick up more on-call time at the weekends (17.30 Friday to 9.00 Monday - out of hours technical support for customers... ). My contract is suitably vague on the details of on-call, other than that I'll be requested to do it and that it is compensated for being on-call by way of time in lieu.

Now I know that I'm not allowed work for the two employers simultaneously on the Saturday, but how does on-call work for the rest of the time?

I also understand that I'm entitled/required by law to have 24 hours off in every 7 days. Can somebody explain how that works in relation to on-call? 

My take on it is that:
1. The 24 in 7 means that I can't work on Sunday even if I wanted to (which I don't), as I've worked the other 6 days of the week.
2. As I've practically reached my 48 hour limit there's not any way I could do on-call anyway even if the 24 in 7 rule didn't apply.

Ideas? Or should I be asking a solicitor who deals in employment law?


----------



## burmo (21 May 2012)

The Organisation and Working Time Act 1997 states that the maximum average working week for many employees cannot exceed 48 hours. This does not mean that a working week can never exceed 48 hours, it is the average that is important. The average may be calculated in one of the following ways: Over 4 months for most employees.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...nd_conditions/hours_of_work/working_week.html


----------



## WhiteVanMan (21 May 2012)

Yes, I should have been clearer on that. I've been working the above arrangement for the last 2/3 months and will be for the foreseeable future. 46 hours a week is the _average_ as it stands.

I don't envisage the 46 working hours a week changing any time soon as I have mouths to feed and bills to pay.


----------



## xeresod (21 May 2012)

In your original post you say your contract says "compensated for being on-call by way of time in lieu" - if this is the case then there won't be a problem with the 48 hour average maximum.


----------



## WhiteVanMan (21 May 2012)

xeresod said:


> In your original post you say your contract says "compensated for being on-call by way of time in lieu" - if this is the case then there won't be a problem with the 48 hour average maximum.



Yes, true. And if I was just working office hours Monday to Friday that'd be grand. I'm not though.

I'm also entitled to 24 hours off every 7 days according to the law.

I guess my problem is that I don't see how I could be required to fit in on-call work in the one day off I have (which is protected in law unless I've mis-read something). Surely the law overrides any contract stipulations?

My main employer is aware of my secondary employment too,  FWIW.


----------



## TreeTiger (22 May 2012)

I may well be wrong on this, but I thought the legislation meant that a *single* employer can't require an employee to work more than 48 hours a week for an extended period.  So as I understand it, if an employee takes an additional position, the first employer is not required to take any account of the additional hours being worked by the employee in the second job.

Is the entitlement to 24 hours off in 7 days not in relation to a single employer as opposed to an employee working for more than one employer?  In other words, WhiteVanMan, I can't see how the fact that you are working 8.5 hours for a second employer needs to be taken account of by your main employer.  He is not asking you to work - for him - more than you are legally permitted.


----------



## Purple (22 May 2012)

I'm a great believer in ignoring the working time act. As you are not a child you should be allowed to work whatever hours you freely choose to work as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others. The state has no business restricting your right to work... If, however, you want to use the working time act to get yourself out of overtime that you contractually signed up for you may get away with it. I don't see how your main employer will be happy about it. It certainly won't do your prospects any good.


----------



## Purple (22 May 2012)

TreeTiger said:


> I may well be wrong on this, but I thought the legislation meant that a *single* employer can't require an employee to work more than 48 hours a week for an extended period.  So as I understand it, if an employee takes an additional position, the first employer is not required to take any account of the additional hours being worked by the employee in the second job.
> 
> Is the entitlement to 24 hours off in 7 days not in relation to a single employer as opposed to an employee working for more than one employer?  In other words, WhiteVanMan, I can't see how the fact that you are working 8.5 hours for a second employer needs to be taken account of by your main employer.  He is not asking you to work - for him - more than you are legally permitted.



Yes, it covers all employment. Stupid, isn't it? 
How's the first employer meant to know that their employee is working a second job? Good question. They just are. It may seem illogical but you have to understand that in the minds of the people who wrote this legislation all employers are evil and all employees are stupid and need to be protected from their more intelligent (and evil) employers.


----------



## Nutso (22 May 2012)

Do you take holidays and/or bank holidays?  This would not be classified as working time and reduce your average hours.


----------



## WhiteVanMan (23 May 2012)

TreeTiger said:


> I may well be wrong on this, but I thought the legislation meant that a single employer can't require an employee to work more than 48 hours a week for an extended period. So as I understand it, if an employee takes an additional position, the first employer is not required to take any account of the additional hours being worked by the employee in the second job.



Wrong on both counts.

On the first point, the law doesn't say each employer can get 48 hours work a week out of you. It says you can't work more than 48 hours a week on average.

On your second point regarding the taking account of hours worked in a second job, ignorance IS a defence for an employer. Which is perverse.

However, if the employer is made aware of the existence of a second job (as is the case here) he has no defence re. exceeding the working hours directive in the eyes of the law.



			
				Organisation of Working Time Act said:
			
		

> 15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—
> (a) 4 months...





			
				Organisation of Working Time Act said:
			
		

> 33.—(1) An employer shall not employ an employee to do any work in a relevant period during which the employee has done work for another employer, except where the aggregate of the periods for which such an employee does work for each of such employers respectively in that relevant period does not exceed the period for which that employee could, lawfully under this Act, be employed to do work for one employer in that relevant period.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





Purple said:


> I'm a great believer in ignoring the working time act. As you are not a child you should be allowed to work whatever hours you freely choose to work as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others. The state has no business restricting your right to work...



Good troll. Did anybody ever tell you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?



Purple said:


> If, however, you want to use the working time act to get yourself out of overtime that you contractually signed up for you may get away with it. I don't see how your main employer will be happy about it. It certainly won't do your prospects any good.



Get off your high horse. Yeah, it's my fault my pay has been reduced due to "the economy", and that I've been forced to work a second job.

I wonder how many employers are using "the economy" to get themselves out of paying the wage the employee contractually signed up for?

Maybe I should have quit my main job, waited six weeks and signed on the dole/collected rent allowance to support my family...


----------



## Purple (23 May 2012)

WhiteVanMan said:


> Good troll. Did anybody ever tell you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?


You got the wrong end of that; I'm against the state treating people like children. I'm not being sarcastic; I am in favour of ignoring the working time act. 



WhiteVanMan said:


> Get off your high horse. Yeah, it's my fault my pay has been reduced due to "the economy", and that I've been forced to work a second job.


 No high horse here. I've had two pay cuts (that I gave myself) after not pay increase for 6 years.



WhiteVanMan said:


> I wonder how many employers are using "the economy" to get themselves out of paying the wage the employee contractually signed up for?


 I'd say there's very few.



WhiteVanMan said:


> Maybe I should have quit my main job, waited six weeks and signed on the dole/collected rent allowance to support my family...


 Why?


----------

