Employer cancelling annual leave

Gingernutty

There are certain professions where leave could be cancelled at short notice.

People in those professions tend to book leave and then book a holiday at short notice. If they have a staycation then they're expected to tell the employer if they are staying in the country so they can be called in at short notice.

If leave is cancelled - then no. You are not 'compensated'. The reasoning behind it is that you knew the risks and you decided to shell out.

It doesn't sound like you are in one of 'those' professions, though.

3 weeks is a long time, if you are worried about leave being cancelled, can you not discuss this with your manager and explain your worries?

thorsoak

Could you not get insurance against this happening???

gem75

Have already looked at our travel insurance and it only pays out for members of the armed forces or emergency services having their leave cancelled.

getmore4less

AP007 wrote: »

No sure about compensation but if you have 3 weeks booked they have to give you 6 weeks notice if they want to cancel it

Only 3 weeks

it's twice to ask, once to approve/reject/cancell.

WTD 15.2(b) and 15.4(b)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/15/made

Subject to contractual variations.

ValHaller

getmore4less wrote: »

Only 3 weeks

it's twice to ask, once to approve/reject/cancell.

WTD 15.2(b) and 15.4(b)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/15/made

Subject to contractual variations.

There is a whole big argument to be had on this, due to ambiguity in poor drafting, I think

(1) A worker may take leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13(1) on such days as he may elect by giving notice to his employer in accordance with paragraph (3), subject to any requirement imposed on him by his employer under paragraph (2).

It can be read that either the giving of notice or the taking of days is subject to any requirement imposed by the employer.

If it is the giving of notice which is subject to employer's requirements, it seems to me that once the employer has signed off on the days, the employee has absolute right to take those days. Indeed the employee would have absolute right to elect for any days on which the employer had not given notice

If it is the If it is the taking of days which is subject to employer's requirements, then indeed the employer can cancel the employees leave.

Unless there is any case law, this particular point is moot.

getmore4less

WTD 15.2(b) and 15.4(b) are the relevent section, previous approval is irrelivent.

it is clear in 3(a) it is the taking of the holidays not the notice

my bold

15.—(1) A worker may take leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13(1) on such days as he may elect by giving notice to his employer in accordance with paragraph (3), subject to any requirement imposed on him by his employer under paragraph (2).
(2) A worker’s employer may require the worker—
(a)to take leave to which the worker is entitled under regulation 13(1); or
(b)not to take such leave,
on particular days, by giving notice to the worker in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) A notice under paragraph (1) or (2)—
(a)may relate to all or part of the leave to which a worker is entitled in a leave year;
(b)shall specify the days on which leave is or (as the case may be) is not to be taken and, where the leave on a particular day is to be in respect of only part of the day, its duration; and
(c)shall be given to the employer or, as the case may be, the worker before the relevant date.
(4) The relevant date, for the purposes of paragraph (3), is the date—
(a)in the case of a notice under paragraph (1) or (2)(a), twice as many days in advance of the earliest day specified in the notice as the number of days or part-days to which the notice relates, and
(b)in the case of a notice under paragraph (2)(b), as many days in advance of the earliest day so specified as the number of days or part-days to which the notice relates.
(5) Any right or obligation under paragraphs (1) to (4) may be varied or excluded by a relevant agreement.
(6) This regulation does not apply to a worker to whom Schedule 2 applies (workers employed in agriculture) except where, in the case of a worker partly employed in agriculture, a relevant agreement so provides.

ValHaller

getmore4less wrote: »

WTD 15.2(b) and 15.4(b) are the relevent section, previous approval is irrelivent.

it is clear in 3(a) it is the taking of the holidays not the notice

You are making pure assertion that previous notice is irrelevant.

WTD 15 - (1) stands on its own apart from reference to WTD 13 (which is irrelevant either way) and its reference to WTD 15 - (3). The question is whether this reference binds to giving of notice or the taking of days

Until you can answer that question, the interpretation of the section is moot.

If you can show that the reference to WTD 15-(3) binds to taking of days, then I agree with you. But you have not shown this. I think your problem is that you have read WTD 15 - (1) one way and cannot see that it could be read another way.

Your interpretation
15.—(1) [A worker may take leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13(1) on such days as he may elect by giving notice to his employer in accordance with paragraph (3),] subject to any requirement imposed on him by his employer under paragraph (2).

My alternative interpretation
15.—(1) A worker may take leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13(1) [on such days as he may elect by giving notice to his employer in accordance with paragraph (3), subject to any requirement imposed on him by his employer under paragraph (2).]

Unless you can see the distinction in meaning and application between the 2 possible bindings of the reference to WTD 15 - (3), you have not engaged with the issue I have pointed out, Once you have engaged with the issue, your task is to demonstrate that the reference to WTD 15 - (3) binds with taking of days

getmore4less

I think you have invented nonexisten punctuation in the sentence
A worker may take leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13(1) on such days as he may elect by giving notice to his employer in accordance with paragraph (3),

It also looks like this does not apply to approved holidays anyway as commented in this post(and I have seen other statements allthough as pointed out by paddedjohn in a later post only sarl ever says this and no backup evidence)
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=48068217&postcount=7

not sure how sarel get to 2 weeks for aproved from the regulations as written but ties in with your interpretation.

burnoutbabe

if any employer did get you to cancel holiday AND did not compensate you for unrecoverable costs, then you'd have major issues going forward for all staff, all of them being worried about being out of pocket.

So they'd likely reimburse you, or risk mass mutiny from all staff.

(and if i had mine cancelled and not compensated, I'd just resign and go on the holiday anyway)

bryanb

paye wrote: »

.and what would they do if you went off sick.

Sack you for gross misconduct if they proved you went away on the holiday whilst on sick leave.