No annual leave for 6 months

saraocallaghan · 24-05-2012 9:02am #1

Hi I interviewed for a job and one of the points raised during the interview was there would be no annual leave granted for the first 6 months during the probation.

Is that allowed? I know annual leave is granted at the discretion of the employer but 6 months over the summertime seems a little excessive. (I have no holidays booked because I was going to book a cheapie last minute thing at the end of the summer)

(I've been told that the role is fast paced and stressful)

Eoin · 24-05-2012 10:09am

As you said, it's at the discretion of the employer, but that "Your employer must take into account your family responsibilities, opportunities for rest and recreation that are available to you". That sounds pretty vague though, and there doesn't seem to be any firm rules about it.

saraocallaghan · 24-05-2012 10:11am

Eoin wrote: »

As you said, it's at the discretion of the employer, but that "Your employer must take into account your family responsibilities, opportunities for rest and recreation that are available to you". That sounds pretty vague though, and there doesn't seem to be any firm rules about it.

Thanks Eoin. I have to give it some thought.

Eoin · 24-05-2012 10:17am

If probation includes a lot of training and all that, you can sort of understand why they don't want people heading off for a week or two.

But if it's the type of environment where it's a chore to get even a day off for a trip to the dentist or whatever, it sounds like it could be a bit of a sweat shop.

PCPhoto · 24-05-2012 10:23am

to me its obvious that the employer does not want people missing out on the experience they gain in the first six months - so taking two weeks off could slow the employee down in terms of gaining familiarity with processes etc.

I would say its a smart move on behalf of the employer (I'm sure the contract does not change if it was november - its just bad timing on your behalf that its coming into summer and "good" weather).

saraocallaghan · 24-05-2012 10:25am

Eoin wrote: »

If probation includes a lot of training and all that, you can sort of understand why they don't want people heading off for a week or two.

But if it's the type of environment where it's a chore to get even a day off for a trip to the dentist or whatever, it sounds like it could be a bit of a sweat shop.

Oh I understand saying it for the first month or so, to get into the rhythm but the idea of not getting a day off until Christmas doesn't seem very fair. I don't know what they'll be like about sick days/doctors appointments, I get the feeling they could be awkward.

tatli_lokma · 24-05-2012 1:12pm

then again it could be something they say at interview time to suss out those who are committed and serious and prepared to put in the graft. When you get in there they may be more willing to allow a few days here and there leave. It is probably to discourage someone starting and then going on 2 weeks hols.

I doubt very much that they would refuse all leave for 6 mths, mainly because in doing so you will then have one years worth of hols to take in a 6 mth period, which is not good for the business either. A day or two here and there might be ok, probably just 2 weeks off they are unwillling to grant.

It is hard to know exactly what their motivations are I'm afraid...you will just have to go with your gut instinct on this one.

Nody · 24-05-2012 1:35pm

No vacation during probation is fairly standard as far as I've experienced it; the reasons have already been stated.

greendom · 24-05-2012 1:38pm

PCPhoto wrote: »

to me its obvious that the employer does not want people missing out on the experience they gain in the first six months - so taking two weeks off could slow the employee down in terms of gaining familiarity with processes etc.

I would say its a smart move on behalf of the employer (I'm sure the contract does not change if it was november - its just bad timing on your behalf that its coming into summer and "good" weather).

It sounds wholy unreasonable to me. He should be entitled to approx 10 days over that time period and not to allow any time off at all is just exploiting the current jobs market. You can be assured that the employer is not Google, Facebook, Sky or anyone of that ilk.

Eoin · 24-05-2012 1:41pm

greendom wrote: »

It sounds wholy unreasonable to me. He should be entitled to approx 10 days over that time period and not to allow any time off at all is just exploiting the current jobs market.

No, the OP will have accrued 10 days over that period. Not the right to take them off during it.

greendom · 24-05-2012 1:46pm

Eoin wrote: »

No, the OP will have accrued 10 days over that period. Not the right to take them off during it.

Yes, I can understand the employer, to a degree, if he were to say, it's during the summer holidays and it's going to be difficult to give you a whole week off while so many of my other employees are on hols. But to say no time off at all for 6 months is completely unreasonable.

Manach · 24-05-2012 1:52pm

So in theory this could extend to say an 11month period, with leave only coming into effect for the 12th month so as to keep within the statutory regime?

saraocallaghan · 24-05-2012 1:54pm

Thanks for all your advise guys. I wouldn't be looking to take the whole 10 days off but not being able to take any annual leave, not even a long weekend (outside of the 2 bank holidays in August and October) is pretty unreasonable to me.

There are other issues in relation to this role, but I wanted to find out people's opinions in relation the annual leave.

Eoin · 24-05-2012 1:55pm

greendom wrote: »

Yes, I can understand the employer, to a degree, if he were to say, it's during the summer holidays and it's going to be difficult to give you a whole week off while so many of my other employees are on hols. But to say no time off at all for 6 months is completely unreasonable.

Yep, if it's zero days off, then that would be unreasonable. If it's no heading away for a week or two, then it's slightly less unreasonable.

Manach wrote: »

So in theory this could extend to say an 11month period, with leave only coming into effect for the 12th month so as to keep within the statutory regime?

My gut feeling is that they'd struggle with this part - no matter how vaguely it is defined: "Your employer must take into account your family responsibilities, opportunities for rest and recreation that are available to you".

Wishbone Ash · 24-05-2012 2:45pm

Isn't there something in law about all employees being entitled to at least 2 continuous week's AL between May and September.

I realise that this may be for existing employees but would think it may be pro rata for new employees.

Eoin · 24-05-2012 3:53pm

I think it's just 2 weeks continuous, no mention of when.

markpb · 24-05-2012 4:23pm

greendom wrote: »

It sounds wholy unreasonable to me. He should be entitled to approx 10 days over that time period and not to allow any time off at all is just exploiting the current jobs market. You can be assured that the employer is not Google, Facebook, Sky or anyone of that ilk.

You'd be very wrong with that assumption. When my wife started working in a major multinational finance company, they were in the middle of a migration project and wouldn't allow any annual leave until it was finished (which was 6 months away). This idea that every worker in Ireland is being screwed by companies is getting a little tiresome.

greendom · 24-05-2012 5:04pm

markpb wrote: »

You'd be very wrong with that assumption. When my wife started working in a major multinational finance company, they were in the middle of a migration project and wouldn't allow any annual leave until it was finished (which was 6 months away). This idea that every worker in Ireland is being screwed by companies is getting a little tiresome.

Where did I say that there were only bad employers in Ireland or that there were no bad employers outside of Ireland ?

Sounds like your wife's MNC was pretty poorly run from a HR perspective. Alternatively just as exploitative as the OP's potential new employer.

Irish_Elect_Eng · 24-05-2012 6:47pm

greendom wrote: »

Where did I say that there were only bad employers in Ireland or that there were no bad employers outside of Ireland ?

Sounds like your wife's MNC was pretty poorly run from a HR perspective. Alternatively just as exploitative as the OP's potential new employer.

Your comment shows how little you understand the vastly varying requirements of different employers and roles. There are as many reason why employers ask for contractual clauses as there are employers.

For example, in the case where the employer is restricting leave for the first 6 months, they could have a situation where they have an role that is essential to the business, covering for an employee that is on maternity leave returning in 6 months. Or from experience they know that it takes 6 months to really get up to speed and fully trained, or perhaps summer is they time that they make all their money....who knows without the OP actually asking....?

Like the previous poster, I sometime wonder about all the evil employer comments? While there are some employers that take the mick, most are genuine, knowing that the most profitable approach is to treat their employees fairly.

greendom · 24-05-2012 6:58pm

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Your comment shows how little you understand the vastly varying requirements of different employers and roles. There are as many reason why employers ask for contractual clauses as there are employers.

For example, in the case where the employer is restricting leave for the first 6 months, they could have a situation where they have an role that is essential to the business, covering for an employee that is on maternity leave returning in 6 months. Or from experience they know that it takes 6 months to really get up to speed and fully trained, or perhaps summer is they time that they make all their money....who knows without the OP actually asking....?

Like the previous poster, I sometime wonder about all the evil employer comments? While there are some employers that take the mick, most are genuine, knowing that the most profitable approach is to treat their employees fairly.

Any firm that is well run and looks after its staff can afford for them to take some time off over a 6 month period.

Why shouldn't someone covering for maternity leave not be allowed to take a few days off ?

With your other example, maybe it does take 6 months to really get up to speed with a new position. An understanding employer would realise that a few days off won't do any harm in the learning process.

i realise that employers, like employees, are going through a hard time at the moment. This doesn't mean they should take advantage of staff who a desperate to keep in employment.

No annual leave for 6 months

Comments