Are everyone entitled to bank+public holidays?

ironlady2022

I'm just taking over the holiday rota and ensuring that everyone's calculations are correct. I have a colleague who starts 1st Jan 2012 and will work Tues-Fri on 30 hours. He was doing 6 hours a day across 5 days previous.

My question is, as he will not work Mondays, is he still entitled to them? If so, does he get an extra day off in place of these?

jobbingmusician

Everyone is entitled to 8 bank/public holidays pro rata (9 next year because of Queenie stuff). You have not given enough information to know whether your company gives x days a year of which 8/9 are BH, or y days a year plus 8/9 BH - for full time staff. Whichever it is, your colleague will get 30/FT hours x total FT allowance, including BH. Some of his BH allowance will fall on actual BHs, but the hours to cover the Monday BHs obviously won't!

ironlady2022

FTEs get 27 annual holiday days + bank/public holidays (normally 8, 9 in recent years).

So based on your sum, he would be entitled to 21.6 annual days + 8/9 bank/public holidays. I understand next year, a couple will fall on a Tuesday and a Friday but what happens to the Monday ones. Will he get it back as a day in lieu?

KiKi

mayling03 wrote: »

FTEs get 27 annual holiday days + bank/public holidays (normally 8, 9 in recent years).

So based on your sum, he would be entitled to 21.6 annual days + 8/9 bank/public holidays. I understand next year, a couple will fall on a Tuesday and a Friday but what happens to the Monday ones. Will he get it back as a day in lieu?

No, no!

Part-timers are more difficult, and instead of looking at 21.6 PLUS BHs, you should look at the holiday entitlement as a whole for PTers, because both AL AND BHs need to be calculated pro rata. That makes working out their entitlement and 'what happens when BH is a Monday' etc FAR easier

FTE = 27+8 (ignoring 9 for now) = 35 a year.

So a part timer should be 35 pro rata (36 for 9 BHs).

On 4 days a week that's: (35 normal paid holiday / 5 days a week) x 4 days worked = 28.

So he is entitled to 28 days paid holiday a year in TOTAL. This means:
* If a BH falls on Tue-Fri, then this has to come out of his 28 days
* If a BH falls on a Mon, there is no effect on him whatsoever

The net effect is that he has his entitlement for the full year and doesn't have more than he should have compared to full timers.

(For the record, a part timer working Mondays often loses out - they have the same amount of leave but usually less flexibility in when they can take it, as BHs often fall on a Monday.)

HTH
KiKi

skintandscared_2

Exactly what Kiki said!

ironlady2022

This makes perfect sense! I went from part time to full time this year 22.5 (3 days a week, 7.5hrs a day) to 37.5 hours but I looked at my original contract and it states clearly I am entitled to 157 hours leave per year which is the equivalent of near enough 7 weeks based on the following calculation;

157 / 7.5hrs = 20.9 days / 3 days = 6.97 weeks. (same as 27 annual days + 8 bank hols = 35 days = 7 weeks)

I only took 3/9 bank holidays this year as I thought I was not entitled to it as I worked Wed-Fri, but have just dug out my contract and so will be 'claiming' these back

Obviously this does not affect me anymore as I am full time but the problem now is, what you are saying makes sense. however no new contract has been drawn for this colleague who has got a promotion and changed his hours. Is it at Manager's discretion?

KiKi

mayling03 wrote: »

This makes perfect sense! I went from part time to full time this year 22.5 (3 days a week, 7.5hrs a day) to 37.5 hours but I looked at my original contract and it states clearly I am entitled to 157 hours leave per year which is the equivalent of near enough 7 weeks based on the following calculation;

157 / 7.5hrs = 20.9 days / 3 days = 6.97 weeks. (same as 27 annual days + 8 bank hols = 35 days = 7 weeks)

I only took 3/9 bank holidays this year as I thought I was not entitled to it as I worked Wed-Fri, but have just dug out my contract and so will be 'claiming' these back

Obviously this does not affect me anymore as I am full time but the problem now is, what you are saying makes sense. however no new contract has been drawn for this colleague who has got a promotion and changed his hours. Is it at Manager's discretion?

Let's put it this way: if you don't calculate it this way he may, pro rata, have less or more paid holiday than others who are full time, which is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.

If he has more paid holiday then you are opening yourself up to all sorts of claims from others - don't even go there. People can have different amounts of Annual Leave (as long as it's more than the statutory min), but this is usually associated with grade, length of service, or type of role across a whole company, and a justifiable reason - not a manager determining that someone else is allowed more just because they like them better.

A new contract *should* be drawn up for good practice. However, if he has accepted the changes in T&Cs and continues to come to work on Tue-Fri then the change in terms is implied and the contract almost becomes irrelevant - you don't need it in a new contract to demonstrate that he has 28 days' paid leave.

But you / he should be chasing the contract (or written terms of particulars as a minimum) because, if nothing else, surely he wants his salary and new promotion confirmed and in writing (if it hasn't been already)?

KiKi

ironlady2022

I work in the social enterprise sector and some things I agree should be more formal. but we don't have a HR department and my colleague is leaving tomorrow and so I have been dumped with the holiday rota. And it's really confusing as we have more part time than full time staff on differing hours. And at least 4/10 people have changed their terms of work in the last 12 months. My colleague is starting his 'new' role on 1st Jan, I'm not in charge of drawing up contracts and even for myself I don't have a renewal and I changed my conditions of work in August this year.

I have not seen his original contract either, this could be a starting point. If all part time staff get pro rota leave + exactly 8 bank/public holidays, then yes, this is unfair. I reckon if his original contract states 7 weeks, then this will continue as he has always worked 30 hours.

KiKi

mayling03 wrote: »

I have not seen his original contract either, this could be a starting point. If all part time staff get pro rota leave + exactly 8 bank/public holidays, then yes, this is unfair.

Yes - because being part-time will mean you have more paid holiday than full-time staff.

I reckon if his original contract states 7 weeks, then this will continue as he has always worked 30 hours.

No, it shouldn't work that way. Don't confuse the number of hours with the shift pattern, because the latter makes a difference.


If someone works 30 hours a week and it's 224 hours leave a year, then it's 224 hours, regardless of what 'days' they work. Eg:
a) If you work 4 full time days, then those 224 hours are over 28 days, at 8 hours a day
b) If you work 3 full time days then those 224 hours are over 22.4 days, at 10 hours a day.

It's still the same leave in hours, but the 'days' work out differently because your working hours are different.

So his contract really should either state his leave in hours, or the days will change if his working days change. The old leave was on his old shift *pattern*. The fact that his working hours haven't changed are irrelevant - his pattern has.

I hope that makes sense.

KiKi

ironlady2022

I totally agree with what you are saying but things don't happen quickly around here and if that's what he has stated on his contract, then it's gonna be a few months before new one is drawn up. Also this means that people have been getting more holidays than they should since we have been open, that's 9 years! And if all of a sudden this gets brought to the attention of my Manager, I'll be the most hated person in the office. The other side to it would be it will just continue as it is as my Manager is very 'lax' let's just say.

KiKi

mayling03 wrote: »

I totally agree with what you are saying but things don't happen quickly around here and if that's what he has stated on his contract, then it's gonna be a few months before new one is drawn up.

The contract argument doesn't stack up, I'm afraid! If you are going by contract stated leave, then that applies to the previous hours, role and salary etc. I appreciate things don't happen quickly (used to work in the public sector!) but if he has accepted the job and is on a new salary, in a new role, then the leave policy has to be applied as equally to him as everyone else.

However, if his old contract says "seven weeks", then it is still seven weeks' leave - but it's seven weeks at FOUR days a week, 7.5 hours a day. Ie, 28 days. Which is correct (inc BHs). Previously it would have been seven weeks at FIVE days a week, but only 6 hours a day. So technically it's correct, if it says "seven weeks" and not a specific number of days.

Also this means that people have been getting more holidays than they should since we have been open, that's 9 years! And if all of a sudden this gets brought to the attention of my Manager, I'll be the most hated person in the office. The other side to it would be it will just continue as it is as my Manager is very 'lax' let's just say.

Well, that's a policy decision to be made, then. Because if what you're saying is true (and if I've interpreted correctly) then people on part time hours potentially have a better or worse deal than full timers, and you are wide open to ET claims.

I'm not sure it *is* the case that people have more leave, though, as your leave seems to be correct from when you were part time...? Sounds like your contracts are potentially correct, but the interpretation of them in terms of part timers isn't.

HTH
KiKi