Using annual leave whilst signed off work

Uncertain

Bev. wrote: »

Thanks SarEl.


I must've clearly misunderstood, because doesn't this go against what SarEl said?

Because SarEl said "YOU (employee, NOT employer) can take holidays whilst on sick". - from this i take it it's the employees choice and NOT the employers.
What i've just understood from what you've just said in reply to Glennn, is the reverse of that.

No, it doesn't conflict.

I think SarEl has explained it fairly clearly in post 21 but if it is still not clear I'm happy to have another go!

mavisangelica

To take holiday would you have to have signing off note or could a sicknote and holiday be in place for the same day?

Uncertain

mavisangelica wrote: »

To take holiday would you have to have signing off note or could a sicknote and holiday be in place for the same day?

There is no such thing as a "signing off note" - one of the popular myths!

No, you are either off sick getting SSP plus any contractual sick pay or you are on holiday getting full pay - can't be both.

If you are off sick very long term (26 weeks plus) then you CAN get contribution based ESA even if your employer is paying contractual sick pay.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

I think SarEl has explained it fairly clearly in post 21 but if it is still not clear I'm happy to have another go!

Go right ahead - sooner you than me. This area of law has become unnecessarily complex and gets more so by the day. And having actually given it a lot of thought, I haven't come up with a way to make it simpler! Or not one that actually works.

Bev._2

Thanks guys.

I know my employer is going to be majorly P'd at the time my operation is, not least because others have holiday booked during this time also, but there's not a lot i can do about it. If i have it any later then i'll need to take more time off work for more tests to be done. I don't like confrontation, but i can see i'm going to get attitude from their end. They imply that we're (whoever is off) doing it "out of badness" - but that isn't the case. Don't they realise that £80 per week (approx) -vs-our basic pay is a no brainer? I'd rather be at work earning my pay & clocking up 4 figures in the bank for the month instead of £80 per week *4 weeks = £320 for the month!! But no, it's like we're doing it out of badness.



Anyway, taking this on a slight tangent (i can make a new thread if appropriate?) ......

What about the subject of holiday pay?

As i say, i and some others get paid based on the previous 3 months average. Some other people at work (still full time people - we all do over 40hrs) get paid their hourly rate * 8 hours (so £6.00 * 8 hours = £48 for one days pay).


I imagine that there's nothing wrong with this. I just don't see it as being very fair that some are on one system while others are on another. I just wanted to check that it's ok like this? I'm not complaining as i'm on the better system of the 2, but i'm asking out of curiosity.

SarEl

It sounds like some of you are on full time (fixed hour) contracts and some not. The number of hours you do per week does not determine whether you are "full-time" or not. Plenty of people work 40 hours per week but only have contracts for 8 or 16 hours. Alternatively, there may be some shifts or other reason for you receiving variable pay - which is why the averaging out is done to determine levels of holiday pay. But it's speculation - there could be any number of reasons - TUPE terms that have been inherited, old and new contracts (as in, depends how long you have worked for them as to which one you have)...

You know what they say about curiousity... if you aren't complaining then I would promptly forget it even happens!