SSP and Holiday Pay

caleyles

I'm currently off work having damaged my shoulder and neck after a fall from height. I hope to be back in a few weeks. I was originally due to take two weeks holidays on 7th of July and I probably won't be signed back until after this. My employer is asking me to take the two weeks I'd originally arranged to take and he said he would give me my holiday wages on top of ssp. I'm not sure if this is allowed. I'm not too bothered about losing my holiday time while recuperating and taking it when I'm already off as we weren't going anywhere for holidays. It just doesn't seem right I could be paid both at the same time. I was wondering if anyone knew that this would be acceptable

specialboy

This can only be done with your agreement, they can't force you to take your holiday while you are on ssp

Masomnia

Definitely dodgy.

As above you can't be on SSP and be on annual leave and paid for that.

Also you need to take at least 4 weeks of annual leave per year, so if you don't do that (because you're off on SSP) then your employer will likely be in breach of working time regulations.

getmore4less

You could change from sick to holiday and be have holiday pay but if you don't want to best to tell the employer.

elsien

You would normally continue to accrue annual leave at the statutory minimum level while off sick. Just wondering if this is the employer's way of avoiding have to give you more time off later in the year?

caleyles

Masomnia wrote: »

Definitely dodgy.

As above you can't be on SSP and be on annual leave and paid for that.

Also you need to take at least 4 weeks of annual leave per year, so if you don't do that (because you're off on SSP) then your employer will likely be in breach of working time regulations.

Purely speculation but if I was off the rest of the year how could I take 4 weeks leave. Surely then I would get paid my holiday entitlement on top of ssp as I don't think you can take it forward a year

caleyles

elsien wrote: »

You would normally continue to accrue annual leave at the statutory minimum level while off sick. Just wondering if this is the employer's way of avoiding have to give you more time off later in the year?

Being in the building trade there never seems to be much protection when you work with a smaller firm and I wondered that too tbh

getmore4less

caleyles wrote: »

Purely speculation but if I was off the rest of the year how could I take 4 weeks leave. Surely then I would get paid my holiday entitlement on top of ssp as I don't think you can take it forward a year

if sick and unable to take the holiday in the holiday year then it carries over.

There are some details depending on the amount of holiday you get but as they can pay for any over the statutory.

sangie595

Masomnia wrote: »

Definitely dodgy.

As above you can't be on SSP and be on annual leave and paid for that.

Also you need to take at least 4 weeks of annual leave per year, so if you don't do that (because you're off on SSP) then your employer will likely be in breach of working time regulations.

Actually, this isn't correct.

There is no reason at all why someone cannot be paid holiday pay and SSP if that is mutually agreed. It's certainly not the common outcome, but there is no rule that says it cannot be done. Employers pay SSP and it isn't means tested, so the employee is entitled to it if they are signed off sick. And nowhere does the law say that an employee cannot be sick and on holiday at the same time. Whilst sick you are still bound by your contractual conditions and that includes being able to take holiday. The only difference comes if the employee does not want to take the holiday time. That is their choice. But taking holiday may offset the difference between being able to afford to live and not having enough money to live on.

And provided that this is, as I said, mutually agreed, then the employee has taken holiday and the employer is not in breach of the regulations.

The most significant drawback would be that the SSP would be heavily taxed since the tax free allowance would be eaten up by the normal pay. And, in the employers does, I'd want a written agreement to this, because they are the ones taking the risk - if the OP turned around and said they hadn't agreed to this, the employer would be the one in difficulty, not the employee.

getmore4less

sangie595 wrote: »

The most significant drawback would be that the SSP would be heavily taxed since the tax free allowance would be eaten up by the normal pay. And, in the employers does, I'd want a written agreement to this, because they are the ones taking the risk - if the OP turned around and said they hadn't agreed to this, the employer would be the one in difficulty, not the employee.

SSP gets taxed/NI as normal earned income.

it is no different to getting a temporary increased wage.

there is no heavily taxed it is just normal tax on the total for the year.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

SSP gets taxed/NI as normal earned income.

it is no different to getting a temporary increased wage.

there is no heavily taxed it is just normal tax on the total for the year.

Comparatively it would be. Because it does become extra income as you say, on top of normal pay. So it wouldn't be the full amount in someone's pocket. But if they want to do this, they can.