Retro pay for employees

[shane_c]

Fair or Unfair?

For the last year an employee where I work has had a number of things, including supervision, added to their job duties but the person they were supervising was a contract position. Next month we’ll be hiring for the position as the contract is about to expire and HR’s view is that once the position is filled with a FT/Permanent/Union person that the supervisor would need to have their job description changed and salary would go up a step, but not retro to cover the year where it was a contract position? FWIW, the supervisor is not unionized.

[edslunch]

The employee is in fact taking on more responsibility - it's more work and more responsibility to manage an employee where you need to do performance reviews, career planning, etc. than a contractor who you basically just direct. Good for them if they get pair more but I wouldn't think they are owed any retro.

[Rathji]

If it was an issue when the person was doing it before, they should have negotiated it into their contract before they started (or while they were doing it)

[shane_c]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If it was an issue when the person was doing it before, they should have negotiated it into their contract before they started (or while they were doing it)

Good point. My understanding is that no change was made at the time of the contract starting because the employer wasn't sure they would get funding for the position to become permanent. They weren't going to move someone up a step on the salary scale because they didn't know if after the year there would be someone for them to supervise, etc.

Then a few weeks ago when meeting with HR and finalizing the job description for the hiring it was mentioned that the person who supervises them would need to have their job description re-written and that they would be bumped up a step.

[CaptainCrunch]

No retro pay required.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by shane_c

Good point. My understanding is that no change was made at the time of the contract starting because the employer wasn't sure they would get funding for the position to become permanent. They weren't going to move someone up a step on the salary scale because they didn't know if after the year there would be someone for them to supervise, etc.

Then a few weeks ago when meeting with HR and finalizing the job description for the hiring it was mentioned that the person who supervises them would need to have their job description re-written and that they would be bumped up a step.

If I was the person, I would consider it a trial period before the position became permanent and be happy I got a raise, assuming I actually liked doing the work.

[The Yen Man]

I don't think there should be any retro pay. If it was not negotiated when he agreed to the added responsibilities, then they aren't owed anything.

[albertGQ]

I'm surprised the employee even thought of retro pay in this scenario

[shane_c]

I suppose you can't blame them for wanting more money though. In another month or so they will get a bump when the position they supervise becomes permanent, likely no retro though.

Would you like to earn more money, sure we all would