annual leave being canceled

LegacyUser

Can my employer cancel my annual leave that they had already signed of on?

If so how much notice do they have to give?

I am a permanent is that matters in any way.

LegacyUser

anonymous holiday wrote: »

Can my employer cancel my annual leave that they had already signed of on?

If so how much notice do they have to give?

I am a permanent is that matters in any way.

I should add the holiday's were signed off on 8 weeks ago and the work place policy states 1 months notice for applying for holidays.

They contacted me Friday evening to say they need me now and my holidays are due to start next Friday.

dennyk

Your employer can determine when you can take your leave (and conversely, when you can't), but per the Organisation of Working Time Act they must consult with you at least one month prior to the date the leave in question is set to commence (either to require you to take leave starting on a certain date or to cancel a previously approved scheduled period of leave). If your leave was already scheduled to commence next Friday, they would have had to consult you at least a month before that date to cancel that leave. Telling you a week before is in violation of the OWTA and you're under no obligation to accept their proposed change to your scheduled leave on that short notice. You could always contact the WRC for advice on the matter.

Jim2007

anonymous holiday wrote: »

I should add the holiday's were signed off on 8 weeks ago and the work place policy states 1 months notice for applying for holidays.

They contacted me Friday evening to say they need me now and my holidays are due to start next Friday.

And presumably they did not just randomly pick you out for cancellation, so what was the reason?


You got a week's notice, are the any expenses for cancellation etc you need to be compensated for?

dennyk

Jim2007 wrote: »

You got a week's notice

A week's notice is not sufficient, per the law; it must be one month.

jimmycrackcorm

As per the other posts regarding minimum notice to cancel your leave, you should ask your employer if they are willing to refund you the costs of your holiday if they intend to break the law.

LegacyUser

dennyk wrote: »

Your employer can determine when you can take your leave (and conversely, when you can't), but per the Organisation of Working Time Act they must consult with you at least one month prior to the date the leave in question is set to commence (either to require you to take leave starting on a certain date or to cancel a previously approved scheduled period of leave). If your leave was already scheduled to commence next Friday, they would have had to consult you at least a month before that date to cancel that leave. Telling you a week before is in violation of the OWTA and you're under no obligation to accept their proposed change to your scheduled leave on that short notice. You could always contact the WRC for advice on the matter.

Thank you I emailed this to my manger and cc in the HR person and within minutes I got a phone call and an email reply apologizing saying there was mix up. I don't believe there was a mistake anyway thank you to those who also replied it is good to know these things and now it is something I can pass on to my colleagues if these mistakes happen to them.

Jim2007

dennyk wrote: »

A week's notice is not sufficient, per the law; it must be one month.

Which is why I asked the reason... one hopes there is a critical issue.

Larbre34

Tell them you're going because they signed off on it as required and that you're going.

Any issues around stalled work or idle resources is the fault of whoever signed off on your leave without fully considering what might be coming down the tracks. Poor management really.

Enjoy your break.

Mrs OBumble

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell them you're going because they signed off on it as required and that you're going.

Any issues around stalled work or idle resources is the fault of whoever signed off on your leave without fully considering what might be coming down the tracks. Poor management really.

Enjoy your break.

Follow this approach, and you'd best spend the break jobhunting.

bluelegend

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Follow this approach, and you'd best spend the break jobhunting.

Sorry but that’s rubbish.

Oafley Jones

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Follow this approach, and you'd best spend the break jobhunting.

Out of curiosity; why hasn’t this poster been banned for trolling. It’s just a constant stream of absolute nonsense from them. I’m convinced they’ve never actually held a job with any level of responsibility at all. It’s like they’ve learned everything about the workplace from watching hard nosed business characters on American TV.

Oafley Jones

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Out of curiosity; why hasn’t this poster been banned for trolling. It’s just a constant stream of absolute nonsense from them. I’m convinced they’ve never actually held a job with any level of responsibility at all. It’s like they’ve learned everything about the workplace from watching hard nosed business characters on American TV.

Because they're right.

Noo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Follow this approach, and you'd best spend the break jobhunting.

And the company best spend the break lawyering up for the unfair dismissal case.

Darc19

Noo wrote: »

And the company best spend the break lawyering up for the unfair dismissal case.

Remember, except in certain circumstances the only compensation from wrc is your loss of earnings and you must show that you made good effort for alternative employment.

In the op case, the company is being ****ty and if it's a critical matter, they should discuss and explain and offer some form of monetary apology

Mrs OBumble

Noo wrote: »

And the company best spend the break lawyering up for the unfair dismissal case.

Who said anything about dismissal?

Lack of career opportunities isn't something you can sue for. Neither is refusing to approve leave more than a month in advance. Or just plain not being trusted by management. Or being assigned to the most boring tasks all the time.
Etc.

The OP may win a war by taking the leave anyways. But any hope of a satisfying career there would be over.

RossieMan

Mrs OBumble wrote:

The OP may win a war by taking the leave anyways. But any hope of a satisfying career there would be over.

They've a holiday booked for well over a month you'd assume. Employer comes back a week before holidays and tells them they are cancelling the holidays as they are needed.
You want the employee to cancel holiday and go to work? Am I right?

Are you absolutely mental? No wonder this country is in such a mess.

**** the job. If this is the way they treat employees you're better off somewhere else OP.
Ignore the "advise" above. Some people seem to be above the ban hammer here, don't ever see any decent answers in any thread.

It’s the same as every similar thread, acting the contrarian. Or worse, someone it would be an absolute nightmare to work with/for.

Jim2007

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell them you're going because they signed off on it as required and that you're going.

Any issues around stalled work or idle resources is the fault of whoever signed off on your leave without fully considering what might be coming down the tracks. Poor management really.

Enjoy your break.

We have no idea why the holidays were cancelled yet... there could have been a fatal accident involving the planned cover for the OP or any other number of reason which might make them look a right a**hole and shorten their career prospects.

NewClareman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Who said anything about dismissal?

Lack of career opportunities isn't something you can sue for. Neither is refusing to approve leave more than a month in advance. Or just plain not being trusted by management. Or being assigned to the most boring tasks all the time.
Etc.

The OP may win a war by taking the leave anyways. But any hope of a satisfying career there would be over.

I agree fully with your advice. Any reputable company will only cancel leave with very good cause. Assuming that this is the case, refusing to cooperate would be remembered.

I've had to cancel leave twice, in over 20 years. Wasn't nice, but the employees understood. In both cases I discussed it with the employee and agreed reasonable costs to be reimbursed. (Cost of rescheduling holidays, including cancellation fees.)

As a side note I've also had leave cancelled, at less than a weeks notice. It wasn't nice and Wifey WAS NOT HAPPY. However, it was urgent and the request was reasonable, in the circumstances. It didn't enter my mind to refuse.

Jim2007

RossieMan wrote: »

Employer comes back a week before holidays and tells them they are cancelling the holidays as they are needed.

Do you seriously think that the average manager or employer are in the habit of cancelling people's holidays at the last minute to mess them about?

If the holidays were signed off on some time ago, it's reasonable to assume that management had planned for the absence and something went wrong. Incompetence on the part of management, a serious incident or something else... we have yet to hear the reason given.

Bass Reeves

Jim2007 wrote: »

Do you seriously think that the average manager or employer are in the habit of cancelling people's holidays at the last minute to mess them about?

If the holidays were signed off on some time ago, it's reasonable to assume that management had planned for the absence and something went wrong. Incompetence on the part of management, a serious incident or something else... we have yet to hear the reason given.

I would not totally accept that. Now I like to know what size company and how many people working there. If leave was approved a month+ in advance the replacement staff members would have needed to have passed away or be seriously ill and that no manager or owner manager could replace OP.

There is no way that a company unless the similar circumstances as above were in place would sack a worker if he stood up for his entitlement.

Under the working directive's a permanent worker is entitled to two weeks leave during the summer season. This is June to August inclusive. As well if OP has family and holiday arrangements were in place his partner may not be able to change there holidays.

It's untrue to say in an unfair dismissal case that the WRC would only compensate for loss of wages in a case like this. They would also compensate for loss of potential future earnings. This would be a 40-100k compensation case not an 5-10k one.

However it would dependant on senario above not being after happening

RossieMan

Jim2007 wrote:

Do you seriously think that the average manager or employer are in the habit of cancelling people's holidays at the last minute to mess them about?

No I don't. But reasonable cover should be able to be sought in a week rather than cancelling holidays.

As has been said, more information is definitely required. It's not a black and white case.

Mrs OBumble

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I
Under the working directive's a permanent worker is entitled to two weeks leave during the summer season.

Side question: can you link to something saying that the 2-weeks entitlement is specifically in the summer season? I always thought it was year-round.


Back on topic: the OP can either put on big-boy pants and negotiate, or they can throw their toys and insist on going on leave. And if there's a cash cost (lost deposits etc) I 100% expect the employer to cover that,and likely a little more.

But overall, one option is going to be far more career enhancing than the other.

Employee privacy rules mean that management possibly cannot tell you details of why your own leave is cancelled (cover person may be sick or have a sick family member etc). Informal networking may provide you with information about these - or in our new WFH world, it may not.

_Brian

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Out of curiosity; why hasn’t this poster been banned for trolling. It’s just a constant stream of absolute nonsense from them. I’m convinced they’ve never actually held a job with any level of responsibility at all. It’s like they’ve learned everything about the workplace from watching hard nosed business characters on American TV.

That poster is 100% correct.
I’ve worked in a number of companies Amy supervisor and manager level amd an employee displaying that attitude would be watched tight, I’ve been instructed on a few occasions to manage such employees out the door, and in some instances I’ve done it too.

I smile to myself when people give the advice to go back to your employer and the first approach being to act like a dick, do you seriously think that doing that doesn’t have implications down the line ?? Yes the employer was wrong in this instance either by mistake or not, but acting like a dick in return just further degrades the relationship and that a bad move, if I make a mistake I want someone to come back and point it out discreetly, we all make mistakes, and when an employee comes back at me acting like an asshole, I remember that down the line.

irelandrover

_Brian wrote: »

That poster is 100% correct.
I’ve worked in a number of companies Amy supervisor and manager level amd an employee displaying that attitude would be watched tight, I’ve been instructed on a few occasions to manage such employees out the door, and in some instances I’ve done it too.

I smile to myself when people give the advice to go back to your employer and the first approach being to act like a dick, do you seriously think that doing that doesn’t have implications down the line ?? Yes the employer was wrong in this instance either by mistake or not, but acting like a dick in return just further degrades the relationship and that a bad move, if I make a mistake I want someone to come back and point it out discreetly, we all make mistakes, and when an employee comes back at me acting like an asshole, I remember that down the line.

We differ in that. I don't think taking the holidays makes me a dick. There's only one person in this following the law and its the OP.

HalfAndHalf

_Brian wrote: »

That poster is 100% correct.
I’ve worked in a number of companies Amy supervisor and manager level amd an employee displaying that attitude would be watched tight, I’ve been instructed on a few occasions to manage such employees out the door, and in some instances I’ve done it too.

I smile to myself when people give the advice to go back to your employer and the first approach being to act like a dick, do you seriously think that doing that doesn’t have implications down the line ?? Yes the employer was wrong in this instance either by mistake or not, but acting like a dick in return just further degrades the relationship and that a bad move, if I make a mistake I want someone to come back and point it out discreetly, we all make mistakes, and when an employee comes back at me acting like an asshole, I remember that down the line.

You’re admitting on a public forum that if an employee knows their employment rights you’ve performance managed (set them up to fail) out the door.

And you call the OP a dick for their troubles.

Wow.

Oafley Jones

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Out of curiosity; why hasn’t this poster been banned for trolling. It’s just a constant stream of absolute nonsense from them. I’m convinced they’ve never actually held a job with any level of responsibility at all. It’s like they’ve learned everything about the workplace from watching hard nosed business characters on American TV.

Haha, I could have guessed the poster you are referring to without you having to quote them

Btw, that’s an impressive number of thanks your post has received in a short period of time so plenty of other posters feeling the same

givyjoe

Isn't this 'case closed'..?! The OP may have edited an earlier post, but they stated there was a 'mistake', they are free to go on their holidays.

Bass Reeves

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't this 'case closed'..?! The OP may have edited an earlier post, but they stated there was a 'mistake', they are free to go on their holidays.

It's amazing how understanding you rights can change the situation. Middle managers in large organisation's can often take actions without realising the implications. Companies in general do not want to lose good workers even ones that act the dick now and again.

Every company has a leave policy. The policy is not defined by the working time act. Most have criteria for annual leave. Yes managers can refuse leave but when granted it should require extraordinary circumstances to withdraw the leave. Even if necessary it a negotiation not a directive is where it should start.

I once saw a situation where two years running the same employee was requested to cancel his leave because he was a single person. In both cases there was other options available. The second time he refused and pointed out that he obliged the company the previous year.

Extraordinary circumstances are not because someone else is out sick. A manager can alway carry out the required work or delegate it to another worker under his direct supervision.

I have seen situations where it was just the easy option to cancel leave or leave a leave request hanging even though there may be set protocol's in place. It amazing how much difference a good manager makes in these situations. They manage the situation not take the easy option.

I say HR knew that there was no extraordinary reason to cancel his leave just a poor management reaction to a situation

Bass Reeves

Mayo_fan wrote: »

Haha, I could have guessed the poster you are referring to without you having to quote them

Btw, that’s an impressive number of thanks your post has received in a short period of time so plenty of other posters feeling the same

I would not think anybody should be banned. But as I pointed out the vast majority of employers do not sack people or manage people out the door for pointing out there rights. After a 40 year's in direct employment I have found that people who are reasonable are valued by employers. If such an employee makes a point about what they consider an unfair situation then any of these employers will not lose a good workers for the same of making a point that they rule inside the workplace.

As well the risk of an unfair dismissal case would be huge. The costs can be massive and for larger companies the publicity unwanted especially if they are continually trying to attract employees.

It amazing what employer's will do to retain good employees

_Brian

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

You’re admitting on a public forum that if an employee knows their employment rights you’ve performance managed (set them up to fail) out the door.

And you call the OP a dick for their troubles.

Wow.

It’s how you apply yourself in any situation that counts. Nobody gets managed out for knowing their rights, knowing your rights is very important. But how you interact is really important. Even within your rights you can handle things right or wrong.

Don’t be a fool and think you can act like a dick towards your employer and there not be implications down the line.

It can he allot more subtle than being managed out, promotions, project work, working abroad opportunities, someone has to decide who does and doesn’t get these things.

Same goes for HR, people think HR are some kind of independent body there to protect employees from the big bad company. Often I’d have sat with HR prior to disciplinary meetings to plan what outcome we would want and how best it was achieved.

I’ve left that life behind now and I’m mostly not as hard nosed as I once was, but I see so many people shooting off their mouths thinking there’s no fallout possible. Management strategies in large companies, particularly multinationals is fierce behind the scenes. Employees who make life hard are identified and often this has implications down the line.

Patrick2010

_Brian wrote: »

It’s how you apply yourself in any situation that counts. Nobody gets managed out for knowing their rights, knowing your rights is very important. But how you interact is really important. Even within your rights you can handle things right or wrong.

Don’t be a fool and think you can act like a dick towards your employer and there not be implications down the line.

It can he allot more subtle than being managed out, promotions, project work, working abroad opportunities, someone has to decide who does and doesn’t get these things.

Same goes for HR, people think HR are some kind of independent body there to protect employees from the big bad company. Often I’d have sat with HR prior to disciplinary meetings to plan what outcome we would want and how best it was achieved.

I’ve left that life behind now and I’m mostly not as hard nosed as I once was, but I see so many people shooting off their mouths thinking there’s no fallout possible. Management strategies in large companies, particularly multinationals is fierce behind the scenes. Employees who make life hard are identified and often this has implications down the line.

Reading a couple of posters here I'm glad to have worked in the companies I did who treat their employees as human beings.

dennyk

No need to be an arsehole about it, but it's definitely worth knowing your rights and standing up for them. A polite "Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't change my plans at this stage" is perfectly reasonable, and if the employer had pushed back, a polite follow-up citing the applicable law would hardly have been "acting like a dick".

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't this 'case closed'..?! The OP may have edited an earlier post, but they stated there was a 'mistake', they are free to go on their holidays.

Anonymous posts have to be approved by mods before they're visible, so even though they eventually appear in the thread at the time they were originally submitted, they might not actually have been visible until long after that time. Didn't see the anonymous OP's response up there about getting the matter sorted until the conversation below it was already well along.

Mimon

_Brian wrote: »

That poster is 100% correct.
I’ve worked in a number of companies Amy supervisor and manager level amd an employee displaying that attitude would be watched tight, I’ve been instructed on a few occasions to manage such employees out the door, and in some instances I’ve done it too.

I smile to myself when people give the advice to go back to your employer and the first approach being to act like a dick, do you seriously think that doing that doesn’t have implications down the line ?? Yes the employer was wrong in this instance either by mistake or not, but acting like a dick in return just further degrades the relationship and that a bad move, if I make a mistake I want someone to come back and point it out discreetly, we all make mistakes, and when an employee comes back at me acting like an asshole, I remember that down the line.

This is despicable, wouldn't be posting this.

_Brian

Mimon wrote: »

This is despicable, wouldn't be posting this.

Why not ??
Would you rather pretend this didn’t happen ??

I see advice all the time here sending people with queries back to their employers to act like a dick to their employer.
I’m merely confirming that doing this will have implications and in some companies if you repeatedly do this the consequences are serious.

im sure it won’t surprise you to know that sometimes employees go about skirting within company policy but being a dick towards fellow workers and managers, this doesn’t go unnoticed.

Larbre34

Mimon wrote: »

This is despicable, wouldn't be posting this.

Let's not be naive about what goes on.

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It amazing what employer's will do to retain good employees

It is also amazing what they WON'T do to retain them. I have countless anecdotes of friends and family seeking better pay and conditions, but being refused due to finance reasons. In pretty much every case, they would get a better paying job elsewhere and hand in their notice, only for the current job to try to match the offer from the new one. One person stayed, that I know of, and they were expected to do much more than they were before the increase, and ended up leaving anyway.

Someone is either worth the money or they aren't. Judging their worth on the fact that someone else is willing to pay them more and you're afraid you'll lose them is a scumbag tactic and should not be tolerated. Companies show zero loyalty to employees when it suits them, and the opposite should be true across the board.

dennyk

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone is either worth the money or they aren't. Judging their worth on the fact that someone else is willing to pay them more and you're afraid you'll lose them is a scumbag tactic and should not be tolerated.

Companies want to minimise their labour costs to maximise their profits. As long as an employee is working for an employer at their current salary, the company often won't see any need to voluntarily pay them more just because they ask for it, as there are plenty who will ask but will just carry on and keep working anyway if their request is denied. It's not until said employee actually hands in their notice that the company knows for sure they're serious about leaving and starts freaking out. And smart employees usually won't breathe a word about their job searching or other pending offers to their employer until they actually accept one and are ready to hand in their notice, lest they're working for a company like _Brian's and find themselves "managed out" for their "disloyalty" before they've found themselves another job.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117606140#Comment_117606140

This is why I have never and will never accept a counter offer (though tbh I should never say never). If they're willing to pay me an extra X% to stay, they should have been paying me that already.

Jim2007

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633441#Comment_117633441

Employers pay you as much as they need to, they are not running a business to make you feel good. If you did not ask or make a case of a pay rise, that's on you, they are not mind readers and it is reasonable for them to assume you are happy.

Bass Reeves

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117633738#Comment_117633738

Yes employers pay as little as they can get away with. However at time the market will be ahead of that and some employers no matter how big a case you put will not budge until they are aware that they will lose an employee.

Corbin Old Duet us making the point that he will not accept a counter offer if it has got to that stage. I be inclined to agree with him in situations like that.

Flinty997

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117647043#Comment_117647043

I all my years, I personally have never heard of any one, being made a serious counter to stay.

Yes you read about it, and hear 3rd hand stories. But not directly.

The ones I've been close to the person has always left, as they've usually already made the commitment to switch in their own head.

The counter offer comes to late, and is too little and too shortsighted to make any difference.

I'd say people being head hunted is more common, and more likely to succeed.

Mrs OBumble

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117652350#Comment_117652350

I've had one, and I stayed.

But it was a government job, and my manager couldn't get me a better offer unless I could prove I'd get more money elsewhere.

backwards_man

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117599692#Comment_117599692

That's a strange view point. If anything the manager has been highlighted to HR as a complete risk asking employees to work after approving their leave. Said manager has likely been put back in their box. Further victimising the employee will be looked on very dimly by HR. All the employee needs now is one follow up incident of anything perceived to be out of line, and he has the manager for bullying and being unfairly treated. Most companies would not risk their rep on a loose canon manager that cant follow the rules. There are several ways to look at any situation.

Op the manager should have clearly explained the reason why they were asking you to accommodate, not telling you that you had to work....and left it up to you. A decent manager would have come up with an alternative plan or flagged ahead upwards that they were short cover for that day, had you said no. My guess is the manager messed up with the schedule and tried to cover it by telling you to work.