I work extra hours but don't accrue holidays

marybelle01

Moneymash wrote: »

Yes I have thought about joining a union and then waiting for time to elpase before stating my issue. However, I would have to pay union subs, before, during and after and the outcome may not be favorable or I could just break even!
.

And that is exactly why unions won't help people who have just joined with an existing issue. Because you are seeing this as "join when I want then, then quit when I don't". It doesn't work like that. You don't get to phone up the insurance company and say "My house is on fire and I want to sign up now" or "I'll just sign up for this month's insurance because the house is burning down but I won't pay next month". You join a union for the duration, not just for the momemnt you need them.

Foggster

marybelle01 wrote: »

There may be better companies to work for, but none of them will give you more than the full-time holiday entitlement for working full-time.

Disagree. I certainly work for a local authority who periodically pay holiday pay on all additional hours worked. It is a pain to administer but the entitlement is there and it is paid.

anamenottaken

Foggster wrote: »

Disagree. I certainly work for a local authority who periodically pay holiday pay on all additional hours worked. It is a pain to administer but the entitlement is there and it is paid.

As a matter of interest,
is that extra pay
(therefore equivalent to an enhanced rate of pay for overtime working when the overtime is above standard full-time hours)
OR
extra holiday which can be taken as time?

Moneymash

Thanks Foggster your point is exactly why I am trying to pursue this.

Marybelle01 Thanks for taking the time to comment, there is no need to comment further.

I will have to check back with my colleague who first raised the issue by saying a friend of hers in another regional company accrues holiday for extra hours worked. I will have to ask her to confirm with her friend what hours she is actually contracted to work, and what sort of contract she is on.

Obviously it is my choice to work these so called 'extras' at the moment I need the money. However I think even if I didn't I may still work a few extras as we have staffing issues and you have to have a ratio of staff to patients. The company makes you feel guilty by saying that if they use agency staff they don't know the patients.

This is harsh but maybe it is what's needed. Increased staffing costs because of agency rates and a lack of continuity in patient care, might get all of us better working conditions, unsociable hours/night rate might be a start.

marybelle01

Moneymash wrote: »

Marybelle01 Thanks for taking the time to comment, there is no need to comment further.
.

And I wouldn't have done if you weren't another of those very rude and offensive posters who only want to hear their own version of the world.

You work full-time. You said that. So if you work full time you already get your full compliment of holidays and you are not entitled to more holidays just because you work more than full time. There is no entitlement to additional holidays for working more than full-time, no matter what the one person who claims to have seen this happen says.

Moneymash

So I have a contract for 36 hours a week and my current annual leave reflects this which isn't in question. What is, is the amount of extra shifts I work on top of the 36 hours a week. I have had a quick look at the directgov site and found the following

Casual or irregular working patterns

If you work casually or irregular hours it may well be easiest to calculate the holiday entitlement that accrues (accumulates) as hours are worked. The holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks is equivalent to 12.07 per cent of the hours you worked. The 12.07 per cent figure is:
5.6 weeks' holiday, divided by 46.4 weeks (being 52 weeks - 5.6 weeks) multiplied by 100 = 12.07 per cent

The 5.6 weeks have to be excluded from the calculation as you would not be present during the 5.6 weeks in order to accrue annual leave. For example, if you had worked 10 hours, you would be entitled to 72.6 minutes' paid holiday:
12.07 per cent x 10 hours = 1.21 hours = 72.6 minutes
The holiday entitlement is just over seven minutes for each hour worked.
I am wondering if there is a case for my colleagues and I to be considered as working irregular hours, even though we have a 36 hour a week contract.

Another point the above raises is, 'The 5.6 weeks have to be excluded from the calculation as you would not be present during the 5.6 weeks in order to accrue annual leave.' However, because we are so short-staffed we often cover our own annual leave. For example I could book 36 hours annual leave and then work and cover my own shifts. My employer pays us for for the normal shift as well as our holiday pay. So in one week I can get paid for working 36 hours and also get 36 hours holiday pay for the same hours I worked.

I am also looking at an ACAS leaflet on holidays and holiday pay.

I will also find and check my contract.
Have a look at the staff handbook.
I will also check with my colleague about her friends contract and working hours.

I can chat to my colleague tonight as I a working, yet another extra shift!

Savvy_Sue

Moneymash wrote: »

I am wondering if there is a case for my colleagues and I to be considered as working irregular hours, even though we have a 36 hour a week contract.

That's not necessarily a route you want to take: if you're considered as working irregular hours, you only get paid for the hours you work.

So atm you're paid for 36 hours every week, and your employer is obliged to pay you for those 36 hours, regardless of whether or not the work is there. Suppose you're suspended, or off sick: you're paid for 36 hours.

If you go onto variable hours, you're paid for the hours you work. And some people have found that suddenly they're not getting as many hours as they used to - and that's fine, the employer can do that!

Moneymash wrote: »

Another point the above raises is, 'The 5.6 weeks have to be excluded from the calculation as you would not be present during the 5.6 weeks in order to accrue annual leave.' However, because we are so short-staffed we often cover our own annual leave. For example I could book 36 hours annual leave and then work and cover my own shifts. My employer pays us for for the normal shift as well as our holiday pay. So in one week I can get paid for working 36 hours and also get 36 hours holiday pay for the same hours I worked.

That is WRONG! You HAVE to be able to take your annual leave: the employer can't buy it back. And I think the union would take that kind of thing up for you - but as marybelle says, you don't join a union just for as long as it suits you.

Although you never know when they might be useful in other areas. I'd not long joined when I needed some non-employment legal advice, and got a free half hour phone consultation which did the job nicely.

BTW, it sounds as if you need an additional member of staff, not more casuals.

rising_from_the_ashes

marybelle01 wrote: »

You work full-time. You said that. So if you work full time you already get your full compliment of holidays and you are not entitled to more holidays just because you work more than full time. There is no entitlement to additional holidays for working more than full-time, no matter what the one person who claims to have seen this happen says.

This is correct .... no one can be given more holidays than the FTE.

I work full time, if I work additional hours (as overtime), then I am paid for them, but I do not (and would not expect to) get additional holidays too as I am already getting the full entitlement.

If someone is employed on a casual basis then this is entirely different (different T&Cs and they are usually not classed as "employees" but rather "providing a service without any mutual obligation"). They do not get sick pay, holiday pay, enhanced rates for overtime etc.

I would be wary of taking this further - at the end of the day, it is your choice to do the additional hours, the employer is not forcing you to do them and you are getting paid the standard rate for doing them.

mariefab

Although it seems harsh that you receive less pay than usual when you take holidays because your overtime isn't taken into consideration, it is lawful.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/359.html

ktothema

I think the real problem here lies in discrepencies rather than whether or not it's legal. If the same holding company offers it elsewhere but not here, it seems unfair. Unfortunately there is probably little that can be done about it. OP may not be questioning it so much if it just applied to bank staff.

My old department used to let you accrue holiday for working overtime (no pay though). This wasn't company wide, and there was a lot of complaints about the disparity. Eventually the company scrapped the scheme until they realised no one would do overtime beyond the contracted emergencies and at with notice times. Certain departments were then got the policy put back in as they couldn't run otherwise. I don't work there now but there are still massive arguments about whether everyone should be entitled to it. Withdrawing or having it isn't illegal, but the disparity causes problems.