Employer refused annual leave

General_Grant

getmore4less said:

Future pay deductions can run into min wage issues.

if the employee is unfit for work then sickness policies come in and there should be no deductions.
 

I don't think minimum wage issues would arise here because they have been paid ahead for the time - it's money in their hands already which would be added to the amount paid in the future.

Undervalued

cr1mson said:

It is difficult to work out what is going on as it could just be a case that the employer has refused the annual leave at this particular time. If OP had had quite a few days off previously the employer may simply be saying you have had a lot of time off recently so we want you to get a run of work behind you for a variety of entirely valid reasons. So they are not saying no to holiday just no to holiday just now. Really need more info from OP.

And as others have pointed employer can tell you when to take leave.

It is amazing how many people don't realise that, probably because many employers have elaborate holiday booking policies giving employees a good deal of choice.

However, it would be perfectly lawful for an employer to shut for 28 days per year and allow no bookable holiday at all!

lincroft1710

Undervalued said:

cr1mson said:

It is difficult to work out what is going on as it could just be a case that the employer has refused the annual leave at this particular time. If OP had had quite a few days off previously the employer may simply be saying you have had a lot of time off recently so we want you to get a run of work behind you for a variety of entirely valid reasons. So they are not saying no to holiday just no to holiday just now. Really need more info from OP.

And as others have pointed employer can tell you when to take leave.

However, it would be perfectly lawful for an employer to shut for 28 days per year and allow no bookable holiday at all!

In the days when there was just 2 weeks annual holiday, many factories would close for 2 weeks in August

prowla

I've had employers pre-book the 3 days between Christmas and New Year off; it's never been an issue for me, as I'd always have taken them anyway.

prowla

TELLIT01 said:

prowla said:

Yes, to the 2nd part though; if it's an in-advance request for (accrued) leave then it is a separate matter to the unauthorised absences.

They aren't totally separate matters.  If you had unauthorised absence and had been paid for them, there are two ways to deal with the situation.  The company could claw back the payment by reducing the amount paid in subsequent months, or set any future accrued holiday against the excess taken.  It would seem that the company has taken the second option.

As has also been said, an employer doesn't have to agree to a holiday request and can tell any employee when they can have leave.

Can a company do that unilaterally?

Jillanddy

Unless the OP comes back and explains the details, it's all guessing games. The employer may have policy that enables them to offset unauthorised absences against annual leave. The OP may have taken high levels of sick leave, not unauthorised absences at all. All we can be clear about is the the OP asked for leave and was refused it. The employer can do that. They don't need a reason either. But somehow I think that one way or another there's either a lot of confusion in what the OP has already said, or there is missing information, because the few facts available don't make sense.

snae

Jillanddy said:

As others have said here already, the employer is entitled to refuse to allow you leave when you want it, provided you are able to take all your leave in the leave year. They can, if they wish, tell you exactly when you will take all your leave and give you no choice at all. The right is to have annual leave, not to have it when you want it.

Of this I am well aware of, however the exact reason given to me is that I have "already had too many days off." If the answer was that there were too many colleagues with holidays booked, there were too many people ill or that they were expecting a surge in business, I wouldn't be on MSE and would simply rebook. The answer given to me is why I am here!

Jillanddy said:

Based on the little that you have said, your trade union officer seems to be reaching - having a disability doesn't in itself entitle anyone to unauthorised absences or sick leave or whatever it was that you took. If it was so unreasonable and discriminatory, then the union was negligent in not pursuing a case of discrimination. So I suspect it wasn't discriminatory at all. Speaking as a disabled person myself, if I were taking unauthorised time off, or excessive sick leave, I would be getting a hell of a lot more than a verbal warning.

My union forced my employer to refer me to Occupational Health, something which they have been refusing for over a year. My unauthorised absences are due to not calling in before a specified time, which is due to disability. Despite telling all my superiors of my health conditions, there was nothing on file about them and when I told my boss about my trade union getting involved, common courtesy was not followed.

My company introduced a new system which there are like seven stages before a dismissal. They really hate sacking people here, probably because new colleague turnover is very high and we have been short staffed for years. "Verbal warning" is the first official level. It is anything but verbal. In fact I received it in writing in the post, if that makes any sense at all... Unfortunately logic is beyond my company, as I found out in the tribunal, and even managed to get it on the record.

Jillanddy said:

And putting things in "inverted commas" doesn't make them illegitimate or less real. You had a verbal warning for unauthorised absence. That is very real, serious, and you need to take stock because two years employment doesn't prevent a fair dismissal. Where I work, the first stage would be a written warning, and it is "three strikes and you are out" - literally. 

Putting things in "inverted commas" doesn't make them illegitimate or less real, I agree. A synonym for "inverted commas" is "quotation marks", which is especially when they are used to quote specific words of phrases from another source. All uses in OP of such being used are to highlight such things, quotations of specific words.

My "verbal warning" was really a written warning that was titled such.
My "unauthorised absences" was the term they used for my dispute with company policy, of which my union officer directly told my boss was "unreasonable" and "discriminatory".
The "qualifying period" and being "full", are in relation to the 2+ year (something like, 1 year, 11 months, 4 weeks) protection from unfair dismissal employees have under UK law, which I quoted from the gov.uk website. If they sack me for whichever reason, I have a right to complain to an Employment Tribunal if I view that dismissal as being unfair.

snae

cr1mson said:

It is difficult to work out what is going on as it could just be a case that the employer has refused the annual leave at this particular time. If OP had had quite a few days off previously the employer may simply be saying you have had a lot of time off recently so we want you to get a run of work behind you for a variety of entirely valid reasons. So they are not saying no to holiday just no to holiday just now. Really need more info from OP.

And as others have pointed employer can tell you when to take leave.

That's a fairly valid point I had not considered.

However the specific reason I was given is that I have "already had too many days off" and not that I couldn't specifically have them this soon.

snae

Jillanddy said:

Unless the OP comes back and explains the details, it's all guessing games. The employer may have policy that enables them to offset unauthorised absences against annual leave. The OP may have taken high levels of sick leave, not unauthorised absences at all. All we can be clear about is the the OP asked for leave and was refused it. The employer can do that. They don't need a reason either. But somehow I think that one way or another there's either a lot of confusion in what the OP has already said, or there is missing information, because the few facts available don't make sense.

Nope. I have in the past been on sick leave, however this was not taken into account in relation to my tribunal. My sick leave was two weeks, and is nothing by comparison to the levels of sick leave colleagues who have been given holiday have taken.

I would be willing to present more information, so far as maintaining anonymity. What else would you like to know?

I get the impression that I am not well liked in general by the management, however most people here aren't too keen on them either, including the members of management themselves. Policies are seldom followed, except until a few months ago it appears.

Undervalued

snae said:

My "verbal warning" was really a written warning that was titled such.
My "unauthorised absences" was the term they used for my dispute with company policy, of which my union officer directly told my boss was "unreasonable" and "discriminatory".
The "qualifying period" and being "full", are in relation to the 2+ year (something like, 1 year, 11 months, 4 weeks) protection from unfair dismissal employees have under UK law, which I quoted from the gov.uk website. If they sack me for whichever reason, I have a right to complain to an Employment Tribunal if I view that dismissal as being unfair.

That is normally regarded as good practice and gives some protection to both parties as it confirms exactly what warning has been given.

The qualifying period you refer to is two years. However a week's statutory notice counts as part of the two years and quite a few employers have tripped up by sacking somebody inside the last week only to find they were able to bring a claim.

For reference, a longer period of contractual notice does not count in calculating the length of service for this purpose. However if there is, say, a contractual requirement for a month's notice this must still be paid.