Is this really allowed .............?

[mammasmadhouse]

OK my boss has spolen briefly to a colleague at the start of the year regarding a possible 6 month acting up period to cover a short term absence. No funding has yet been agreed, a jd has been put together and approved. However my concern is that once agreed the pay will be back dated to the start of the year and the person in question has not done the job in any way shape or form and there are ni immediate plans for this to happen. All the tasks that I was told were to be done by this person have been completed by me! When I queried it I was told that because it has been discussed it had to go through, no advert was put out nothing in writing and it was a very loose decision. Perhaps it is me for it seems very wrong??

[virgil]

an employer risks equal pay claims if they pay someone a premium for performing tasks they are not actually performing.

[scarlettsmummy2]

What sector is it? If it is only acting up I think it is fine in general- I have been in this position myself, however they will presumably have to advertise at some point and not sure about the back dating of pay. Again, I would think that if the employer really wanted to get round it they could.

[BriansBrain]

Why in the world would it be back dated?

Payroll would need a start date for the new salary and that would be when the new acting up role starts?

Do you have an HR dept?

[virgil]

Is your issue the fact that its being backdated or the fact that she isn't performing the tasks?

Is your issue that you are actually performing the tasks and so you should be the one acting up and getting the honorarium/additional payment?

[flowery]

What makes you think the pay will be backdated?

[mammasmadhouse]

It will be backdated to Feb as this is when the former post holder left. It took 6 weeks to get the new person in & up & running. I could understand it better if it was for the 6 week interim period but cannot understand the justification for 6 months, especially when the person is not undertaking any tasks in relation to the role or grade.

[flowery]

I'm not sure I understand the "is this really allowed" bit. It sounds like you don't think someone deserves the pay increase they may be about to get. That's a valid opinion but have you a particular reason to think might not be "allowed"?

[lougle]

So what you're saying is that person A was promised an 'acting up' role, but all the bits that constitute the 'up' have been done by you. Rather than recognising this, management are going ahead with the temporary promotion for person A and backdating the pay to the point where the previous person had left?

You're upset because you see Person A getting money for nothing when you did all the work and are getting nothing?

[mammasmadhouse]

I am not upset that I am not getting the credit for what I have done as I see it as part of my role anyway. I guess I just dont agree with someone getting 6 months pay for a job they are not doing or contributing to especially when we have been told that the budget is so tight we are in danger of strangulation!!It dosnt seem fair on the other staff in the dept who are working across roles etc who get nothing and who may well be capeable of actually undertaking the role at a higher level than they are currently being paid and who have been bypassed because of a loose discussion. I know its all probabley down to who you know etc

[Relaxedandhappyperson]

I'm not surprised you're upset. I would be!

In practical terms I suppose an employer can pretty much do what it likes, ignore the law, ignore its internal guidance... Then you would need to challenge it formally.

But it's not clear why an employer would pay someone 6-months' additional pay for not doing a role that was only vacant for 6 weeks anyway. (If you work that out, can I come & work for your employer?!)