Holiday entitlement?

JustAnotherSaver

2 situations here and was looking for feedback on both.


#1:


Person works Monday full days (8:30 - 6:30) & that's it. No other day. They got their holiday entitlement (not sure on the number of days but i guess it must've included bank holidays due to the day of the week that they worked).
Now they're in a position where they can do more hours & in addition they now do a sort of half day setup on the Tuesday 9:00am until about 2:00pm.

They've been told they don't get any increase to their holiday allowance.


I would've thought this to be incorrect. Surely this extra time will add up over the year, even if it means they just get as little as 1 extra day for the year?


#2:



Person is contracted to 30 hours per week but never does it - they always do around 40 hours Monday-Friday.

The holiday system runs 1st April - 31st March & they started work there i think mid July.

They're going to ask what their entitlement is but how do you check whether the figure given is the correct figure?

General_Grant

Need to know what their contracted hours will be - are they changing? Best to calculate on hours (contracted) worked, not days.
Pro rata in the first year any way.

TELLIT01

From what I can see on the gov.uk site there is a basic entitlement to 28 days annual leave, anything above that is down to the company. Simply working longer hours occasionally doesn't automatically increase holiday entitlement.

billy2shots

Person 1 does not work the same hours on each of their days so 'days' can not be given. Instead their leave will be given in hours.

In both cases their contracted weekly hours will be multiplied by 5.6 to give them their yearly allowance (based on them working a full year).

Bank holidays could muddy the water for someone regularly working that day and their specific contract would need to be looked at.

Doshwaster

TELLIT01 wrote: »

From what I can see on the gov.uk site there is a basic entitlement to 28 days annual leave, anything above that is down to the company. Simply working longer hours occasionally doesn't automatically increase holiday entitlement.

Yes, 28 days minimum but that can include bank holiday and the employer can insist that some days are taken at a certain time of the year such as an site shutdown between Christmas and New Year.

In most systems, holiday entitlement is accrued at a pro-rata rate throughtout the year. So if a full timer is entitled to 25 days a year (plus bank holidays) then they "earn" 2.08 days per worked month. Some employers will allow people to go into debt by taking days before they are earned but there is no right to do so. If you leave the job having taken unearned holidays then the money can be recovered from your final payslip.

sangie595

billy2shots wrote: »

Person 1 does not work the same hours on each of their days so 'days' can not be given. Instead their leave will be given in hours.

In both cases their contracted weekly hours will be multiplied by 5.6 to give them their yearly allowance (based on them working a full year).

Bank holidays could muddy the water for someone regularly working that day and their specific contract would need to be looked at.

Again, WRONG!!!

If overtime is regular, then that must be included in the calculation and in the holiday pay given. Otherwise every employer would give out basic contracts of five hours a week. Which is actually what some employers did! Hence the substantial case law that changed that years ago! Occasional overtime isn't included in the calculation of holiday, but it may need to be considered for holiday pay. The safest way for an employer to operate is to base holiday pay on the average of the last 12 weeks income if worked hours are variable.

The use of 5.6 weeks as a multiplier only works if people don't get bank holidays off normally - otherwise the result would be wrong because they would get bank holidays plus 5.6 weeks by your method.

There is nothing muddy about bank holidays, and it's also nothing to do with ones contract. The basic entitlement is 28 days which would include bank holidays. If someone regularly works that day, then they will still need to have 5.6 weeks holiday (pro rata). If their employer regularly shuts down on bank holidays, that time would still have to be taken into account for the calculation. The easiest way to do this is, as many employers do, to simply calculate the number of hours in total that someone can take, and avoid all mention of days, weeks and bank or other holidays. At my place of work everyone has leave calculated in hours, even full time staff.

At the time of writing you have only posted on two threads. On one you argued that someone had committed criminal offences that they haven't, and now got are giving misleading advice on holidays. Do you think you could check to see if you are right before posting rubbish in future? You've already scared one poster by telling her she's broken the law.

sangie595

Doshwaster wrote: »

Yes, 28 days minimum but that can include bank holiday and the employer can insist that some days are taken at a certain time of the year such as an site shutdown between Christmas and New Year.

In most systems, holiday entitlement is accrued at a pro-rata rate throughtout the year. So if a full timer is entitled to 25 days a year (plus bank holidays) then they "earn" 2.08 days per worked month. Some employers will allow people to go into debt by taking days before they are earned but there is no right to do so. If you leave the job having taken unearned holidays then the money can be recovered from your final payslip.

That's not correct. It used to be, but that's a long time ago. The employer is now allowed to to only allow accrued leave in the first year, but after that they cannot prevent someone from taking leave simply on the grounds that it hasn't been accrued yet. So there is a right to do so. The problem is that employers can refuse too authorise leave anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. But technically it is a right. It's another one of those "two different aspects of law on one situation" conflicting!

billy2shots

“
Person 1 does not work the same hours on each of their days so 'days' can not be given. Instead their leave will be given in hours.

In both cases their contracted weekly hours will be multiplied by 5.6 to give them their yearly allowance (based on them working a full year).

Bank holidays could muddy the water for someone regularly working that day and their specific contract would need to be looked at.
Originally posted by billy2shots
”Again, WRONG!!!

If overtime is regular, then that must be included in the calculation and in the holiday pay given. Otherwise every employer would give out basic contracts of five hours a week. Which is actually what some employers did! Hence the substantial case law that changed that years ago! Occasional overtime isn't included in the calculation of holiday, but it may need to be considered for holiday pay. The safest way for an employer to operate is to base holiday pay on the average of the last 12 weeks income if worked hours are variable.

The use of 5.6 weeks as a multiplier only works if people don't get bank holidays off normally - otherwise the result would be wrong because they would get bank holidays plus 5.6 weeks by your method.

There is nothing muddy about bank holidays, and it's also nothing to do with ones contract. The basic entitlement is 28 days which would include bank holidays. If someone regularly works that day, then they will still need to have 5.6 weeks holiday (pro rata). If their employer regularly shuts down on bank holidays, that time would still have to be taken into account for the calculation. The easiest way to do this is, as many employers do, to simply calculate the number of hours in total that someone can take, and avoid all mention of days, weeks and bank or other holidays. At my place of work everyone has leave calculated in hours, even full time staff.

At the time of writing you have only posted on two threads. On one you argued that someone had committed criminal offences that they haven't, and now got are giving misleading advice on holidays. Do you think you could check to see if you are right before posting rubbish in future? You've already scared one poster by telling her she's broken the law.

Why so aggressive? You've stalked me to pick up the only other thread I have posted in.

Your readiness to shoot down my post has led to a wall of contradiction.

You say that regular overtime 'MUST' be included and then you follow up with
'Occasional overtime isn't included in the calculation of holiday, but it may need to be considered for holiday pay.

So is it MUST , MAY or OCCASIONALLY??

The multiplication of 5.6 was given due to the OP using an example of different hours being worked on different days because a flat number of days wouldn't work in that example, something you seem to agree with?

The muddying of the water was in regard to someone working mondays which would confuse things again. Some employers may give enhanced pay for working this day, give a day off in lieu, add it to your holiday etc etc. I advised the OP to check their contract.

I'm sorry I will need to disagree with basing holiday in the last 12 weeks someone has worked. If that was the case every single employee would work as many hours as possible in the first -2 weeks of the year to artificially inflate their holiday allowance. A quick way for small businesses to go bust.

OP, I hope you can get to the bottom of your issue. Best of luck as these things can get confusing. Sometimes I wish I ran a 9-5 business mon-fri rather than a 24h 365 day one. The shift patterns take a lot longer to figure out.

I'm sorry everyone, I am new to this site as pointed out. I hoped to join in with the forum but I know where I'm not welcome.

sangie595

I honestly hope you can figure out what is currently upsetting you and that you can get on top of things. Hopefully happiness is just around the corner. Best of luck.

General_Grant

billy2shots wrote: »

You say that regular overtime 'MUST' be included and then you follow up with
'Occasional overtime isn't included in the calculation of holiday, but it may need to be considered for holiday pay.

So is it MUST , MAY or OCCASIONALLY??

Consider the difference between the meaning of "regular" and "occasional". That's in relation to TIME/amount of holiday.

The May is to consider PAY. That's the amount/rate of remuneration which may be different when over-time is involved.

Sangie was not contradicting herself on that point.

Masomnia

5.6 weeks is the statutory entitlement, if calculating in days it's capped at 28, but otherwise multiplying the weekly contracted hours by 5.6 will work. 5 days * 5.6 is 28 days, so any calculation based on 5 equal days being full time and 28 days of entitlement will give the same result. If that makes sense.

So for 1. yes if they work more hours they will be entitled to more annual leave in hours.

2 we don't have enough information. Somewhere overtime came into it but we don't even know if this is overtime or someone who salaried working more than their contract states.

Doshwaster

sangie595 wrote: »

That's not correct. It used to be, but that's a long time ago. The employer is now allowed to to only allow accrued leave in the first year, but after that they cannot prevent someone from taking leave simply on the grounds that it hasn't been accrued yet. So there is a right to do so. The problem is that employers can refuse too authorise leave anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. But technically it is a right. It's another one of those "two different aspects of law on one situation" conflicting!

Ah - I see, Yes, I suppose it is a subtle difference.

I always thought that allowing people to use holiday entitlement which hadn't been accrued was good practice as it spread out time off throughout they year otherwise nobody would be out in Q1. If anyone did leave before making up the time then they money could be reclaimed so there was no real risk to the employer.