Job Shares & Holidays

Spendless

My friend works on a job share 3 days a week, the other does 2 days a week. Both start and finish same time. My friend says she gets 5 weeks holiday (15 days) per year, the other gets 4 weeks (8 days). I don't think this is right, and that the person should get 5 weeks too, amounting to 10 days.

My friend doesn't agree. Who is right?

alwaysonthego_2

they both should by rights get the same holidays as you say

liney

Depends: Does one have addition days due to length of service?

They should get the same pro rata as they are doing the same job though as a base. So at least 8 days for the 2 day person and 12 days for the 3 day person assuming they are paid bank holidays seperately.

Spendless

liney wrote: »

Depends: Does one have addition days due to length of service?

They should get the same pro rata as they are doing the same job though as a base. So at least 8 days for the 2 day person and 12 days for the 3 day person assuming they are paid bank holidays seperately.

One started a couple of months before the other last year, so I doubt it, though it might be a possibility.

Bank Holidays, My friend works Mon, Tues, Wed each week, the other Thurs Fri. As many BH fall on Monday my friend gets day off and is paid for it. Good Friday works in the others favour. The firm is shut over Xmas till after New Year so not completely sure how that one works. I assume they jus get their set wages regardless of where the BH fall.

dmg24

It could just be that different contractual terms that were negotiated?

Spendless

dmg24 wrote: »

It could just be that different contractual terms that were negotiated?

and if the 2 day a week worker discovers that the 3 day a week worker gets more favourable terms,(eg hols) can they complain?

dmg24

No, not really, not unless there was a discriminatory reason for the difference, such as sex, age, disability etc.

In a previous job I got more holiday than all but one of my colleagues, because the two of us refused to sign a new contract when we merged with a new company. We also worked 2.5 hours less each week.

I would certainly be annoyed if I was in the lesser position, but it does happen.

Spendless

dmg24 wrote: »

No, not really, not unless there was a discriminatory reason for the difference, such as sex, age, disability etc.

In a previous job I got more holiday than all but one of my colleagues, because the two of us refused to sign a new contract when we merged with a new company. We also worked 2.5 hours less each week.

I would certainly be annoyed if I was in the lesser position, but it does happen.

sex no both female, no disability in either, age 1 40, not sure of other but either 40s or 50s.

I can see that why your circs meant you had diff terms, but in this case one (3 day worker) has been employed may/june last year on more hols than the other who was employed july/aug last year. Whilst it is possible that a new contract might have come in before the other started, I don't think it's highly likely from the story my friend has told me.

dmg24

It sounds to me like it is either an administrative error, or a contractual difference. My contract differed with someone who started three weeks after me, so it does happen.

Also, you've got situations like the NHS and Agenda for Change, where newer employees in most circumstances (though not all) are on much worse terms than their older counterparts.

Just been speaking to a friend about this and he reminded me of what happened to him last year. He works for a sole trader, and threatened to leave, but was 'persuaded' to stay by the offer of a much better package. There was only one other person who did his job, but they were not offered the new terms.

Though I think it is very demotivating for people to be on different terms, sadly it happens in all sorts of different roles.

Spendless

dmg24 wrote: »

Just been speaking to a friend about this and he reminded me of what happened to him last year. He works for a sole trader, and threatened to leave, but was 'persuaded' to stay by the offer of a much better package. There was only one other person who did his job, but they were not offered the new terms.

Though I think it is very demotivating for people to be on different terms, sadly it happens in all sorts of different roles.

Thanks, put like that I can see why, in fact thinking about it it has happened to me. My hours were from 8.30 but someone who had been there years, got overtime if she started at 8.30 her 'proper' start time was 9am.

In my OP though, does the fact that they are a job share (eg both make up full-time job) though make a difference? Eg can you treat one half of a job share more favourably than the other?

Emmzi

spendless,

when I've written jobshare T&Cs I've had to make sure the wed-fri worker doesn't suffer because they don't get the 'free' days the Mon-Wed person gets as paid BHs. (If it isn't a straight pro-rata). In effect Mon worker gets 6-ish 'free' holidays and Fri worker only gets one-a bit unfair.

Could that be the reason for the difference, esp. if office is closed on BHs??

If it's open, it'd be more normal to say they both work all BHs but get eg 50% each, 40/60 each, depending on how many hours they do.