NHS employer - hassle after maternity

notanewuser

You shouldn't have booked a holiday when the leave wasn't approved.

I don't understand why you think she has so much leave to use. Your explanations make little sense.

bll78

I know you're peeved because you have holiday's booked but they seem to have been more than fair.
Your wife has to give them 28 days notice of when she wants to return, which she did. However she then wanted 9 weeks leave adding on. It's only that bit they've taken time to agree. They've then said have 7 weeks and you'll have to use the rest later. Which means she's having a large chunk of the most desirable annual leave period, which I'm sure isn't going to be easy to cover.
I can't understand how she has 9 weeks from last year anyway, normally the maximum would be 41 days after 10 years service and including bank holidays, so they've given her 1 years annual leave in one chunk.
You haven't said when she is returning, but I assume after her chunk of holidays it's going to be summertime, so if the first date available to take more holidays is November she'll only be working a few months before going off on holiday again.
I think she's stuffed for your holidays as although you assumed she'd be off, I cannot see how anyone could argue that her employer has been unreasonable them letting her have 7 weeks tagged onto the end of her mat leave, they didn't have to let her have any. Or they could have easily said we need you straight back you'll have to take the leave in odd days, work a week have a week off etc..
I have to be honest and say as much as try to give my employee's what they want, I'd be pulling my hair out by now with your wife's demands when they've obviously played ball.

corbyboy

My opinion is it's you and your wife who are being unreasonable. Yes, employers have to be sympathetic to changes caused by children. But you seem to think that you have a right to have every single request granted automatically.

Your wife has been granted 7 weeks annual leave after her mat leave. In what way is that unreasonable?

As for changing hours. She only works 17.5 hours for goodness sake! Is there no way you can fit that around the hours you work?

I can see a business reason why that would be rejected.
The employer would have to keep your wife up to date with everything. Annual training, appraisals, information governance refreshers, safeguarding children training, fire, infection control etc. all for somebody who only just works a full day!
Then, of course, they would have to recruit somebody else to cover the missing 7.5 hours.

The only solution I can think of is perhaps ask another part time colleague if they would be happy to pick up the extra hours your wife wants to drop.

SJG123

Hi,

I also work for the NHS and am about to go off on adoption leave (which with in the NHS is paid the same as the mat leave). In the defense of the NHS I would like to point out that provided you have been employed by the same trust for a specific length of time prior to the leave you receive leave payments that are way above those that you would receive in a private company.

In addition your wife will not be losing her leave, just taking it at a different time - you will still need child care anyway?

Most trusts offer salary sacrifice schemes so that you can buy child care vouchers and also if you ask around it is likely that local nurseries will offer discounts to NHS employees. I have found about 7 in our area offering up to 10% off.

lakes17

In addition your wife will not be losing her leave, just taking it at a different time - you will still need child care anyway?

The problem is the OP has already booked a holiday for the 2wks his wife has been denied.

[Deleted User]

notanewuser wrote: »

You shouldn't have booked a holiday when the leave wasn't approved.

I don't understand why you think she has so much leave to use. Your explanations make little sense.

The amount of leave was never in question thats not the issue.

The holiday is within her 12 months allowable maternity period. Its just how its done - leave or maternity.

[Deleted User]

bll78 wrote: »

I know you're peeved because you have holiday's booked but they seem to have been more than fair.
Your wife has to give them 28 days notice of when she wants to return, which she did. However she then wanted 9 weeks leave adding on. It's only that bit they've taken time to agree. They've then said have 7 weeks and you'll have to use the rest later. Which means she's having a large chunk of the most desirable annual leave period, which I'm sure isn't going to be easy to cover.
I can't understand how she has 9 weeks from last year anyway, normally the maximum would be 41 days after 10 years service and including bank holidays, so they've given her 1 years annual leave in one chunk.
You haven't said when she is returning, but I assume after her chunk of holidays it's going to be summertime, so if the first date available to take more holidays is November she'll only be working a few months before going off on holiday again.
I think she's stuffed for your holidays as although you assumed she'd be off, I cannot see how anyone could argue that her employer has been unreasonable them letting her have 7 weeks tagged onto the end of her mat leave, they didn't have to let her have any. Or they could have easily said we need you straight back you'll have to take the leave in odd days, work a week have a week off etc..
I have to be honest and say as much as try to give my employee's what they want, I'd be pulling my hair out by now with your wife's demands when they've obviously played ball.

A few points:-

1. She gave notice 5 weeks ago which was 9 weeks notice of return to work. Its taken them 5 weeks to make a decision. Played ball you say?

2. She has 7.5 weeks accrued from a year. Its something like 143.5 hours based on 17.5 hours a week.

3. The ability to end maternity early and add on accrued leave is allowable in the trusts maternity policy. Alternatively, she can take the full 12 months and get paid for the leave. EXACTLY THE SAME. Actual start date back is identical.

4. So a whole years leave to use between November and April is fair? You can bet like I said that multiple requests during this time will be rejected and they will try to get her to lose her leave by not using it.

[Deleted User]

corbyboy wrote: »

My opinion is it's you and your wife who are being unreasonable. Yes, employers have to be sympathetic to changes caused by children. But you seem to think that you have a right to have every single request granted automatically.

Your wife has been granted 7 weeks annual leave after her mat leave. In what way is that unreasonable?

As for changing hours. She only works 17.5 hours for goodness sake! Is there no way you can fit that around the hours you work?

I can see a business reason why that would be rejected.
The employer would have to keep your wife up to date with everything. Annual training, appraisals, information governance refreshers, safeguarding children training, fire, infection control etc. all for somebody who only just works a full day!
Then, of course, they would have to recruit somebody else to cover the missing 7.5 hours.

The only solution I can think of is perhaps ask another part time colleague if they would be happy to pick up the extra hours your wife wants to drop.

'Granted' leave? Makes it sound like a favour. Its an employment contract so its an entitlement.

[Deleted User]

lakes17 wrote: »

In addition your wife will not be losing her leave, just taking it at a different time - you will still need child care anyway?

The problem is the OP has already booked a holiday for the 2wks his wife has been denied.

Like I said, its within the 12 months allowable maternity period so its just a discussion on whether this is maternity of officially back to work but using accrued leave.

I don;t see what employer is gaining. She has told them she plans to physically return to work on June 8th. (which is 12 months). However, it would be preferable to officially start back April 8th and then use up all accrued leave to run until June 8th.

Either way she wont be back in work until June 8th. Whats the difference? Employer being awkward just means no more days worked but more days off when she does go back.

Prothet_of_Doom

fufu_banterwaite wrote: »

Blimey, you should see how staff in other sectors get treated! That might cause you to re-evaluate your opinion of what is scandalous!!!

The question I always ask is this:

Are we the tax payers, actually the employer of people in the pubic sector ? And have we delegated our obligations to politicians who appoint senior civil servants to run it on our behalf ?

If that is the case, How would you want to be treated if you had the choice ? I don't automatically think "Well my boss is a bully, so I think everyone's boss should be too"

My own view is that the employer, should think long term, about the long term careers of employees, and design jobs around the demographic of those that they attract to work for them. Any large organisation can cope with part time working, if they plan for it.