loss of extra holidays due to discrimination act

bigfoot2010

Hi

Through long service I have acrued additional holiday for my annual leave. Due to a recent merger I am required to sign a new contract. The new company are saying they can no longer give me these additional days citing age/sex discriminiation law. They are offering to buy back the days, but for me a day off with my family is worth far more than a days pay less tax.

I found the following article

ht tp://ww w.fpb.org/hottips/470/Holiday_entitlement_and_discrimination.htm

Not sure if this is still up to date, but it doesn't really make things clear for me.

Can I contest this or am I out of luck? I thought they could still offer me additional days as a reward for good work.

thanks

Donald (UK)

getmore4less

How many days
how are they earned

I think the 5 years excemption still applies so service related up yo 5 should be OK(unless it no longer applies).

Point at the NHS they still give extra service days

5y +2 days
10Y + 4days(6 total).

If the largest employer in the UK can do it then why can't they?

marybelle01

I am sure that it is still possible to have some extra days for long service - although I thought it was capped at five years. But maybe the problem isn't the possibility of doing it but the existing terms of other employees. If they don't have this provision maybe the employer is worried about a claim from them?

KiKi

If this is a policy decision - regardless of the reason - there's little you can do. They can give notice to change your contract and 'compensate' you as far as they can (which they're offering to do).

It may be that age discrimination is nothing to do with it, but they just want to harmonise all contracts?

I'd say it's probably not worth fighting, as if they want to do it, they will - regardless of the reason.

HTH
KiKi

Googlewhacker

bigfoot2010 wrote: »

Hi

Through long service I have acrued additional holiday for my annual leave. Due to a recent merger I am required to sign a new contract. The new company are saying they can no longer give me these additional days citing age/sex discriminiation law. They are offering to buy back the days, but for me a day off with my family is worth far more than a days pay less tax.

I found the following article

ht tp://ww w.fpb.org/hottips/470/Holiday_entitlement_and_discrimination.htm

Not sure if this is still up to date, but it doesn't really make things clear for me.

Can I contest this or am I out of luck? I thought they could still offer me additional days as a reward for good work.

thanks

Donald (UK)

But its not a reward for good work, its a reward for working there a long time and as such COULD be seen as indirectly discriminatory against younger employees...

I can see their point and frankly what other employers do is irrelevant.

Savvy_Sue

Googlewhacker wrote: »

its a reward for working there a long time and as such COULD be seen as indirectly discriminatory against younger employees...

I can see their point

I think it's very tenuous, tbh. It could be seen as indirectly discriminatory against those on fixed term contracts (we have a few of those at work, although they're often renewed). But the easy answer to younger employees is to stick around!!!

Clearly just as it's not a reward for good work, it's not a reward for age, it's a reward for loyalty / sticking around!!!

bigfoot2010

KiKi wrote: »

It may be that age discrimination is nothing to do with it, but they just want to harmonise all contracts?

Yes they have also sited this as a reason. But they are also using the age/sex discrimination issue.

I just wondered whether there was any way round this clause and whether I could argue my case with them.

thanks

KiKi

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Clearly just as it's not a reward for good work, it's not a reward for age, it's a reward for loyalty / sticking around!!!

It's not a reward for age, as you say, but by it's very nature you are more likely to be able to fulfil the requirement if you are older (in order to have 10 years' service in the first place), and so is indirectly discriminatory and could be contested.

bigfoot2010 wrote: »

Yes they have also sited this as a reason. But they are also using the age/sex discrimination issue.

I just wondered whether there was any way round this clause and whether I could argue my case with them.

I wouldn't go there, personally. It sounds like they've made up their minds and are putting it in place anyway. As they are using the harmonisation argument as well I think you'll get nowhere.

KiKi

Googlewhacker

its as tenuous as other indirect discrimination causes...