Leave Year Holiday Rights

cherryghost

Hey,

Sorry if I'm in the wrong forum. My wife has worked in her current job since June this year. We planned going on 2 week holiday in March of next year but ultimately rejected for the employer for reasons being that 'by March you wouldn't have earned enough time off'.

She works full time and would be entitled to '1/3 of a working week per calendar month that the employee works at least 117 hours to about 20 days annual leave' based off her contract. Leave year is Jan-Dec and she hasn't booked any other days for next year.

Is this legal? This would mean she could never take a 2 week holiday until 2nd half of the year

seamus

Functionally yes, it's legal.

If for no other reason than annual leave is given at the employers' discretion.

The reason for the employee not having "earned" enough leave is not typically invoked for full-time employees. But I guess it's how things are done in that workplace. So by March she would be entitled to a week off.

It seems a bit crazy - it basically means by their logic that every employee has a 1/3 of a week remaining to be taken in December. How do they accommodate that? But their workplace, their rules, ultimately.

cherryghost

Thanks. That's pretty much the same conclusion that I came to, wasn't fully ascertain to the legal credentials of it. And yes, it is a bit crazy logically. It means she is forced to take holidays during periods she doesn't wish to or else lose the holidays from Leave year rollover...

EDIT: And they won't allow her to take July/August holidays either.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It seems a bit crazy - it basically means by their logic that every employee has a 1/3 of a week remaining to be taken in December. How do they accommodate that?

In my experience of companies where you can only take the annual leave you have accrued to date, there is also the possibility to carry days over to the next year but they must be used up by a certain date, e.g. before the end of February.

Kings Inns or bust

Deleted User wrote: »

In my experience of companies where you can only take the annual leave you have accrued to date, there is also the possibility to carry days over to the next year but they must be used up by a certain date, e.g. before the end of February.

This, however, is illegal as the statutory required amount of leave can not be taken in year one.

My faith that HR workers have more than two brain cells to rub together dissipates with every passing year. Not directed at you Jackie, even if you do work in HR :pac:

livedadream

its a dickish way to do it, but theres never been a big enough hullabuloo over it for it to go to the EAT

ive worked in companies where its done and its always the first thing i do away with, penalised parents in particular wanting to go on hols during mid term break etc.

Kings Inns or bust

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

This, however, is illegal as the statutory required amount of leave can not be taken in year one.

My faith that HR workers have more than two brain cells to rub together dissipates with every passing year. Not directed at you Jackie, even if you do work in HR :pac:

Ha, ha ... I don't so no bother. Maybe in the first year you're obliged to take the remaining 1/3 in December @ Christmas?

Although now I'm wondering what the OP means when he says she can "never take a 2 week holiday until 2nd half of the year"?

Surely this would only be a year one problem.

cherryghost

I read through her contract just there, I clearly was reading an old contract. It stipulates:

'Your annual leave entitlement will be 20 days, which accrues at 1.67 days for each complete month
worked. Leave not taken in one holiday year (i.e. January to December) cannot be carried forward to
the next year and no remuneration will be paid in respect of untaken leave.

Holidays must be taken at times convenient to the running of the Company and must be agreed with
your manager.'

So why would this non printed rule of 'by March you wouldn't have earned enough time off' apply. Is it a managers discretion?

EDIT: I missed the 'accrue' bit. I guess thats that then. I don't know how the holding December holiday ransom works then because the next paragraph states no holidays can be rolled over into next year. Sounds like they're just doubling over their actions.

cherryghost

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, ha ... I don't so no bother. Maybe in the first year you're obliged to take the remaining 1/3 in December @ Christmas?

Although now I'm wondering what the OP means when he says she can "never take a 2 week holiday until 2nd half of the year"?

Surely this would only be a year one problem.

I'm under the impression that the never take a 2 week holiday until 2nd half of the year applies to all staff, even the staff that have been there for 3 years.

Kings Inns or bust

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, ha ... I don't so no bother. Maybe in the first year you're obliged to take the remaining 1/3 in December @ Christmas?

Although now I'm wondering what the OP means when he says she can "never take a 2 week holiday until 2nd half of the year"?

Surely this would only be a year one problem.

Possibly, but with a policy so daft as the OP OH's company I suspect they also do not allow holiday to be carried over which would mean one would have to work 6 months before accruing 2 weeks.

seamus

cherryghost wrote: »

EDIT: I missed the 'accrue' bit. I guess thats that then.

Yeah, pretty much.

This kind of stuff can end up being cultural more than formal. Someone reads the contract one way and decides what the correct interpretation is and then that becomes the company line.

There could be someone in HR who takes 2 weeks off every February and is unaware that the rest of the company is following this rule.

Practically everywhere I've worked allows you to take holidays whenever. If you leave mid-year and you've taken "too many" holidays, the balance is simply deducted from your final payslip.

If your wife is good at wording things nicely, she can try ask her boss whether he would give the green light to the holidays if she can get HR to say it's OK.
If he says yes, then she can check it out.

But if it's ingrained culturally and the HR people and top-level management have been there donkey's years, they're likely to refuse to change. Because they just couldn't be arsed. "flood gates", "hassle", etc.

Kings Inns or bust

It seems a remarkable stupid and self defeating rule unless everyone takes the final week of the year off.

livedadream

Yeap, it's the HR way

endacl

Same happened me once, some years ago. Gave about three months notice of the holiday request. I was told it might be problematic. I told them it wouldn't be problematic at all, and if it simplifies things I'd be happy to give my two weeks notice before I went. Sometimes organisations need their foolishness pointed out to them...

Kings Inns or bust

endacl wrote: »

Same happened me once, some years ago. Gave about three months notice of the holiday request. I was told it might be problematic. I told them it wouldn't be problematic at all, and if it simplifies things I'd be happy to give my two weeks notice before I went. Sometimes organisations need their foolishness pointed out to them...

I admire your large hairy ones, but I think in the majority of situations someone just in the door in an undisclosed role may not have your bargaining power.

Come to think about it, length of service and or holiday years may be at play here.

cherryghost

Perhaps but I was also under the impression of 8 months work (would be almost 9 in her case) should legally allow her to take this 2 week break anyway.

Stheno

cherryghost wrote: »

Perhaps but I was also under the impression of 8 months work (would be almost 9 in her case) should legally allow her to take this 2 week break anyway.

No.

All the relevant legislation states is that you should be permitted a two week break in the leave year

cherryghost

Stheno wrote: »

No.

All the relevant legislation states is that you should be permitted a two week break in the leave year

So basically she's only allowed 2 weeks Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec due to her employers farcial rules.

Stheno

cherryghost wrote: »

So basically she's only allowed 2 weeks Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec due to her employers farcial rules.

Pretty much.

Sucks but nothing illegal
She should also check if the company is closed between Christmas and new year as she will need to potentially keep days back for that

Kings Inns or bust

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It seems a remarkable stupid and self defeating rule unless everyone takes the final week of the year off.

Stheno wrote: »

She should also check if the company is closed between Christmas and new year as she will need to potentially keep days back for that

I think you've nailed it there, the company may close on certain days over the Christmas period with the employees using their annual leave entitlements for this.

Peregrinus

Yup. When you can take leave is a matter for negotiation between you and your employer. Employers are within their rights in not allowing you to take leave before it accrues, and they are also within their rights in requiring you take leave on particular days when it suits the employer.

Many employers are more flexible than this, but there's no law requiring them to be.

Cookie_Monster

Leave not taken in one holiday year (i.e. January to December) cannot be carried forward to the next year and no remuneration will be paid in respect of untaken leave.

is that even legal? And if it is, that's mad!
would that not result in half the company being absent for the last few weeks of the year, if management do not allow you to take hols at various stages surely they cannot prevent you from using it up before it disappears?

Peregrinus

Well, a lot of people are going to take holidays between Christmas and the New Year anyway, and in some workplaces they may be required to.

But, yeah, there is a point here. You can have a "no holidays until they have accrued" rule, and a "must take holidays at times agreed with management" rule and a "no carrying forward of unused holidays" rule, but it won't be acceptable to operate them so rigidly and inflexibly that people lose some of their holiday entitlement.

If they operate them quite rigidly then, yes, leave will tend to be heavily back-loaded to the end of the year. And if this becomes a problem for the employer, the solution lies in his hands; be more flexible about when leave can be taken.