The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) this week (September 1) revealed that trainee pharmacists have voiced concerns about “discrepancies” between the advertised and actual salary of some trainee jobs.
“Several trainees reported discrepancies between what was advertised on [trainee pharmacist recruitment platform] Oriel and the actual details presented in their contracts,” it said.
Read more: Pharmacies ‘named and shamed’ for failing to pay minimum wage
In one instance, a trainee “was offered a contract at £23,500 instead of the advertised £24,500 with the employer ‘justifying’ the £1,000 deduction as a cost associated with designated prescribing practitioner (DPP) placement”, the membership body said.
It noted that if this trainee “worked more than 37 hours per week”, it is “likely” that the employer would be “breaching the minimum wage regulations at this salary level”.
“Similar issues were reported by another trainee who discovered their salary was set below the legal minimum wage,” the PDA said.
Read more: Trainees ‘surprised’ to graduate without IP qualification
And for another placement, “only 34.5 hours per week and a salary lower than what was originally stated on Oriel” was offered, it added.
This arrangement, however, “would fail to meet the minimum 35-hour requirement for a placement” and fell short of the “individual’s salary requirements”, the PDA stressed.
“Exploitative contractual clauses”
It also highlighted that a “recurring concern among trainees is the emergence of restrictive and, at times, potentially exploitative contractual clauses”.
“One notable example involved a community pharmacy requiring a trainee to commit to a five-year tenure as a pharmacy manager at 52 hours per week following the completion of their training”, it said.
Read more: Foundation training schemes risk ‘breaching minimum wage law’
The PDA set out that the legal maximum working week is 48 hours unless an individual voluntarily chooses to opt out of that protection.
“The trainee refused to sign the contract, especially as the employer seemed to leverage the trainee’s visa status to enforce compliance” and this led to the offer being withdrawn causing them “significant distress”, it added.
“Financial penalty”
Another contract brought to the PDA’s attention required the trainee “to agree to two further years of employment post-training, with a 12-month notice period should they try to leave”.
“There was also a threat of deducting a day’s pay for each day not worked during this period,” the membership body said.
“Such terms raise questions about their fairness and enforceability, as well as the ethical implications of attempting to force a new professional into a prolonged employment arrangement under threat of financial penalty,” it added.
Read more: Minimum wage to rise 6.7% as National Insurance hike confirmed
Other concerns raised by trainee pharmacists included “issues with leave and holiday entitlement” and “uncertainty surrounding the requirement for trainees to pay for their own training courses”.
The PDA stressed that the cumulative impact of these challenges is “significant” and has caused some trainees to “experience extreme mental or emotional stress”, leaving them “unable to perform normal day-to-day activities”.
Read more: ‘Vast majority’ of trainees view reg exam results as pass rate revealed
It comes after four pharmacies featured in the 518 companies the government “named and shamed” for failing to pay employees the minimum wage in June, with Rowlands and Day Lewis appearing in the top 20.
Meanwhile, the PDA highlighted in July that some pharmacy trainees were surprised to discover that although they would graduate with an MPharm, they would not be awarded an independent prescribing (IP) qualification as expected.
