leaving without notice - no holiday pay

mimiduck

Hi
I wanted to ask in regards to my situation. I recently left a job without notice due to stress (i was unable to continue due to pressure, i did not seek a doctor so i have no proof of this). On my contract i had 3 months notice period.

Now the company said that due to me leaving without notice they will not be giving any holiday pay. According to my calculations i should have about almost 10 days accrued. The employment contract does not mention of the this type of a situation. I know what i dod was not ideal (and this is the first time when i have left without notice).

My question is, do you think this is normal? I would tjink that if i have sorked up to certain time i am still entitled to my holidays and i would not want this company keep this. On the other hand i am scared that if i pursue this the company will say i caused them more harm by leaving without notice. What do you guys think?

TadleyBaggie

I say it was a wash, they could have made you use your holiday days during your notice period anyway.

ReadingTim

It's probably not a great idea to pursue the company for failing to honour the terms of its contract with you when you caused the problem by failing to honour the terms of the same contract in the first place.

Furthermore, given you have little mitigating evidence to explain why you acted in the way you did, it's probably wisest to simply let the issue go, concentrate on getting better in the first instance, and, once you are feeling better, getting a new job.

spadoosh

An employer has to pay you accured holidays. If they havent they are in breach of the law and the contract.

You are in breach of contract for not fulfilling your notice period. An employer can sue for costs incurred as a direct result of your breach. Things like hiring a temp, loss of a customer etc. These are usually very difficult to prove.

Using the holidays as notice period makes little difference apart from paperwork. The amount still gets paid and the work still doesnt get done.

Its frustrating when an employee leaves without notice so its not uncommon to pay as little as they think they can. They clearly think you will not object to them breaking the law probably due to you not fulfilling your notice. And being fair to them, they pay you, pay training costs and other assosciated costs and then have to do it all again at short notice because someone decides thye dont want to show up.

I would say you have the upper hand as the law is very definitiely on your side (you should be paid accrued holidays) and more questionable (got to prove its cost them and can only recover costs ie not much benefit just mitigated losses) for the employer.

ReadingTim

spadoosh wrote: »

An employer has to pay you accured holidays. If they havent they are in breach of the law and the contract.

You are in breach of contract for not fulfilling your notice period. An employer can sue for costs incurred as a direct result of your breach. Things like hiring a temp, loss of a customer etc. These are usually very difficult to prove.

Using the holidays as notice period makes little difference apart from paperwork. The amount still gets paid and the work still doesnt get done.

Its frustrating when an employee leaves without notice so its not uncommon to pay as little as they think they can. They clearly think you will not object to them breaking the law probably due to you not fulfilling your notice. And being fair to them, they pay you, pay training costs and other assosciated costs and then have to do it all again at short notice because someone decides thye dont want to show up.

I would say you have the upper hand as the law is very definitiely on your side (you should be paid accrued holidays) and more questionable (got to prove its cost them and can only recover costs ie not much benefit just mitigated losses) for the employer.

The cost of hiring a temp can be very clearly proven by an invoice from their agency, and I'm pretty certain that an invoice for a 3 month notice period will be significantly larger than 10-odd days of accrued holiday.

So, while the law on holiday pay is in your favour, the law on breach of contract is in the favour of your employer. Pursue your claim by all means, but don't be surprised if they do the same. Given your winnings are likely to be dwarfed by your losses, it's probably time to pick your battles...

paddedjohn

Send a lba and see if they react, you may be lucky and they pay out but if they don't I wouldn't bother following it up as their counter claim could cost you dearly in the end.

sangie595

spadoosh wrote: »

An employer has to pay you accured holidays. If they havent they are in breach of the law and the contract.

You are in breach of contract for not fulfilling your notice period. An employer can sue for costs incurred as a direct result of your breach. Things like hiring a temp, loss of a customer etc. These are usually very difficult to prove.

Using the holidays as notice period makes little difference apart from paperwork. The amount still gets paid and the work still doesnt get done.

Its frustrating when an employee leaves without notice so its not uncommon to pay as little as they think they can. They clearly think you will not object to them breaking the law probably due to you not fulfilling your notice. And being fair to them, they pay you, pay training costs and other assosciated costs and then have to do it all again at short notice because someone decides thye dont want to show up.

I would say you have the upper hand as the law is very definitiely on your side (you should be paid accrued holidays) and more questionable (got to prove its cost them and can only recover costs ie not much benefit just mitigated losses) for the employer.

I'd disagree. It is perfectly reasonable for the employer to say that they consider the accrued holiday as part of the notice period. That has nothing at all to do with whether there is a quantifiable loss or not, and whether they wish to pursue it. I'd guess - but this isn't a guarantee - that they won't unless the OP tries to push the issue. But if they push it, then there's a significant likelihood that the OP will end up sued. There is no excuse for breach of contract by the OP. If they were genuinely unable to continue in work for three months, then they could have either negotiated with the employer, or gone off sick. The fact that they did neither, and have absolutely no medical evidence to support their claim, casts doubt on its veracity. If they also happen to have gone straight to another job, given that context, a court is quite likely to consider that they were lying. Whether or not they were is irrelevant - given that they cannot have gone sick due to having no medical support for their position, and they wouldn't be eligible for benefits due to voluntarily resigning, that leaves substantial doubt as to their truthfulness. Which would leave them very much open to a court agreeing to a counter claim. I wouldn't recommend making more of a mess than this already is. It could cost the OP far more than some holiday pay.

mimiduck

Thanks for all your help!

pinkshoes

They owe you 10 days holiday.

You owe them 3 months of employment. (So 65 working days...)

Personally I would keep quiet!