Bank Holidays (again!)

clairec79

This isn't just a wording issue is it? Because if he gets given 28 days to take when he likes it's the same as being given a day in lieu just not spelt out as one

SarEl

clairec79 wrote: »

This isn't just a wording issue is it? Because if he gets given 28 days to take when he likes it's the same as being given a day in lieu just not spelt out as one

I have assumed it isn't becasue the OP seems to have been clear that his contract states 28 days including bank holidays, and the OP does appear to have a grasp of basic employment rights. But it possibly is worth the OP checking that his mate is as sensible as he is about these things. Easy to check - he should know how many days holiday he is allowed to take.

LittleVoice

The employer is able to pay for ("buy back" by paying double time) the eight bank holidays. However they cannot deny him the time if he wants to take the equivalent amount of time off during the year.

My reasoning for this is that the final 8 days (1.6 weeks) were added to the statutory entitlement and are not included in the amount of time which cannot be replaced with pay.

The OP's friend's employer is buying the holiday (at standard rate really) by paying double time, that is they are paying the standard rate for the day any way and then adding the same amount to buy the time back.

If the friend wanted to insist on taking the time off (on a bank holiday if the employer agrees), then the double pay for working a bank holiday would not apply.

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

My reasoning for this is that the final 8 days (1.6 weeks) were added to the statutory entitlement and are not included in the amount of time which cannot be replaced with pay.

.

This provision was rescinded in April 2009. Employers can no longer buy back any of tthe statutory leave.

moose1982

I'll ask for a copy of the contract as I was told it is just the absolute basic, and as he works five days a week, that equates to 28 days per year. I suspect the contract will be old though and probably say minimum by law or words to that effect.

LittleVoice

SarEl wrote: »

This provision was rescinded in April 2009. Employers can no longer buy back any of tthe statutory leave.

Thanks. I must catch up!

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

Thanks. I must catch up!

Nah - to be fair you may have confused European law with UK law - I have noticed quite a few sites that do this too. European law says that you must have at least 20 days holiday, and permits the buying back of holiday over this. Our UK law used to allow this too - but it was only for a few years when the difference between the minimum and the actual was evolving (when we were increasing our statutory leave). But any country is allowed to "go better" than European law - and we did. We insist that people must be allowed to take 28 days annual leave - and quite right too because otherwise employers in some places would force the buy back. Although in UK law you can still carry forward the "excess" 1.6 weeks leave - but only with permission from the employer, and it must be used in the next leave year so there is no doing it every year!

moose1982

LittleVoice wrote: »

Thanks. I must catch up!

I used to be a police officer and even in criminal law it seemed the rules changed every other day and I'm guessing the same happens in all areas of law, so don't get worried about it

Savvy_Sue

clairec79 wrote: »

This isn't just a wording issue is it? Because if he gets given 28 days to take when he likes it's the same as being given a day in lieu just not spelt out as one

SarEl wrote: »

I have assumed it isn't becasue the OP seems to have been clear that his contract states 28 days including bank holidays, and the OP does appear to have a grasp of basic employment rights. But it possibly is worth the OP checking that his mate is as sensible as he is about these things. Easy to check - he should know how many days holiday he is allowed to take.

I'm glad this was covered: in the half of our organisation where staff may be required to work Bank Holidays the deal is that you either book it as part of your annual leave, or you work it. If you work it, we don't pay double time for all BHs: I've slightly lost track of which we do and which we don't, and one year we paid x 1.5 for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve rather than the actual BHs!!! On the grounds that those were the two days people might really want to be at home getting ready for Christmas, or partying like mad ...

SarEl

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I'm glad this was covered: in the half of our organisation where staff may be required to work Bank Holidays the deal is that you either book it as part of your annual leave, or you work it. If you work it, we don't pay double time for all BHs: I've slightly lost track of which we do and which we don't, and one year we paid x 1.5 for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve rather than the actual BHs!!! On the grounds that those were the two days people might really want to be at home getting ready for Christmas, or partying like mad ...

This seems emminantly sensible. Some people actually prefer to work bank holidays, and it stops all the squabbling about rota's, the interminable swopping of shifts until nobody knows who is working, etc., etc. In this country there are certain and rare days when our holidays are actually "holy days" - which is where the word comes from! If they are that important to them for that reason, we should accomodate wherever possible even if it means bending over backwards. Otherwise, leave people to choose their holidays wherever possible. Or make sure you have enough diversity in your staffing - my friends husband (a muslim social work manager) says that it was very "asian" down his workpalce the last two weeks. Which was fine by him because they were all missing at the two Eid's!