Moving House OH Been refused time off...!!

confused31_2

tbs624 wrote: »

The guidelines for this type of leave are for use in genuine emergencies, not to cover a lack of planning. Moving house is a planned event.You should have explained to your solicitor that you needed to know as far in advance as possible and provisionally booked holiday time.

You have to look at the wider picture too - those of us who have families expect to be able drop out of work at short notice,or without communicating our needs properly to the HR dept, leaving those without families to possibly be asked to come in on their days off?

The OP says she couldn't take the kids to her MIL, because FIL needs bringing back in the morning and the house is too small for FIL to stay...and yet, if the two older children were sleeping at MIL's then surely grandad could have had their room for just one night?

Time off to look after your child
If you have a child who is five years old or younger, you have the right to take time off work to look after them. This is called Parental leave. You must have worked for your employer for at least one year before you can take this leave. You can take up to 13 weeks off. The leave will not be paid unless your contract of employment says it will. If your child is disabled and 18 or younger, you can take up to 18 weeks unpaid time off work.

obviously you dont know the guidlines, and also why should these parent have to go through all that hassle when he can simply have the time off.

HR department are always really helpfull to the employees?

are you a manager of some level?

confused

poppysarah

I hope the OPs move goes well.

It's very stressful at the best of times.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

confused31 wrote: »

Time off to look after your child
If you have a child who is five years old or younger, you have the right to take time off work to look after them. This is called Parental leave. You must have worked for your employer for at least one year before you can take this leave. You can take up to 13 weeks off. The leave will not be paid unless your contract of employment says it will. If your child is disabled and 18 or younger, you can take up to 18 weeks unpaid time off work.

obviously you dont know the guidlines, and also why should these parent have to go through all that hassle when he can simply have the time off.

HR department are always really helpfull to the employees?

are you a manager of some level?

confused

Are you joking? he may well get the time off, and he may well be first out of the door should the company need to slim down.

As an employer, are you telling me I need to run my business based upon the whims of my employees? ( we aren't talking about being reasonable here)

tbs624

confused31 wrote: »

Time off to look after your child
If you have a child who is five years old or younger, you have the right to take time off work to look after them.

The time off was to move house, not look after children, unless I have misread the original post

confused31 wrote: »

obviously you dont know the guidlines, and also why should these parent have to go through all that hassle when he can simply have the time off.

You are maybe missing the point:

tbs624 wrote: »

You have to look at the wider picture too - those of us who have families expect to be able drop out of work at short notice,or without communicating our needs properly to the HR dept, leaving those without families to possibly be asked to come in on their days off?

confused31 wrote: »

HR department are always really helpfull to the employees?

It's not about a "them and us" situation , HR depts also have to be fair to the other employees too. If you check the first post, you'll see that the husband "left a message" but "didn't think to follow it up". Now, whilst it's reasoanble to expect that your messages would get passed on, it's also reasonable IMO for someone to follow it up if they really need that time off urgently.

confused31 wrote: »

Im just saying what i would do .....

and I simply have a slightly different viewpoint to yours.

They seem to have reached a workable compromise, and I also hope that their move goes well

confused31_2

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Are you joking? he may well get the time off, and he may well be first out of the door should the company need to slim down.

As an employer, are you telling me I need to run my business based upon the whims of my employees? ( we aren't talking about being reasonable here)

You wanna be careful mate if youve got employees you need to look at the law, you might end up in court yourself facing a tribunal, treat workers as they should be, theres always a solicitor ready to take cases for workers whos employers have not followed employment law.

I dont know how big your company is but a big tribunal case could finish you off.

Some people on here are unbelievable, i was giving him an option that he could use, his employers sound like txxts so why not use the law to get the time off.

The only people who would say dont use it are those who are obviously employers or in management roles, get in the real world.

Do you honestly believe the HR department never got the message? or do you think has i do they chose not to act on the message?


confused

Alan_M_2

confused31 wrote: »

You wanna be careful mate if youve got employees you need to look at the law, you might end up in court yourself facing a tribunal, treat workers as they should be, theres always a solicitor ready to take cases for workers whos employers have not followed employment law.

I dont know how big your company is but a big tribunal case could finish you off.

Some people on here are unbelievable, i was giving him an option that he could use, his employers sound like txxts so why not use the law to get the time off.

The only people who would say don't use it are those who are obviously employers or in management roles, get in the real world.

Do you honestly believe the HR department never got the message? or do you think has i do they chose not to act on the message?


confused

I think you've missed the point here and are actually guilty of not living in the real world yourself...so here's another perspective.....

I'm an employer, I have one employee who arrives on time, leaves on time and does his job, no more, no less.

I have a second employee, he does his job equally well as the first employee but He's forever taking time off at short notice with little thought for the business or his fellow employees.....

Neither of these employees have done anything that would warrant disciplinary actions, neither are in any way being unreasonable from a legal standpoint, but from an employers point of view there is an enormous difference.

It's wage rise time, who gets looked upon more favourably?

Alternatively, I need to make redundancies, again who is more likely to be let go?

These are real world scenarios, not employment tribunals......and I'd hazard a guess it's this that Cpt Mainwaring was hinting at.

Also consider that the laws a company is required to comply with are directly related to it's size based on number of employees.

SouthCoast

From the facts given by the OP, they would find it very hard to convince an employment tribunal that this was an "emergency".

confused31_2

like i said before it doesnt have to be an emergency, as for the post about redundancys it might be right for a tin pot cmpany like your own, but a supermarket is quite a big company and they have procedures in place.

Like first in and last out, irespective off how much time or loyalty is shown, i suspect it would be very much like were i work and you are just a number.

At my place there is no loyalty to good workers, just the ones who have been there the longest have the choice of the best jobs that become available.

Ive worked for tin pot companys and to be honest i would never do it again as they have no precedures or protocol in place, but if you did get rid of someone based on the fact that a dependant relied on them and they took time off for it, i think you would find yourself being took to task about it.

Its alright getting rid of them, but you couldnt use that as an excuse and you would have to prove the person you have kept as more skills than the one you have got rid of.

I mean indirctly the man requesting the time off to move house could take the time off to look after his kids and that is my point, whether its the truth or not is irespective.

He could look after the kids while everyone else does the move , which would mean he is not lying and he applying the law which is there for him to use.

confused

confused31_2

SouthCoast wrote: »

From the facts given by the OP, they would find it very hard to convince an employment tribunal that this was an "emergency".

as it said in the original post can he take time off for parental leave? as the law stands he can simple as that, so i dont know why you people are say he shouldnt as the law clearly states he can.


all he would have to say his, his misuss is otherwise occupied and he has no one to look after his kids,its as simple as that.

It might not be the truth, but who really cares about that.

It doesnt have to be an "emergency"

confused

Captain_Mainwaring_2

confused31 wrote: »

You wanna be careful mate if youve got employees you need to look at the law, you might end up in court yourself facing a tribunal, treat workers as they should be, theres always a solicitor ready to take cases for workers whos employers have not followed employment law.

I dont know how big your company is but a big tribunal case could finish you off.

Some people on here are unbelievable, i was giving him an option that he could use, his employers sound like txxts so why not use the law to get the time off.

The only people who would say dont use it are those who are obviously employers or in management roles, get in the real world.

Do you honestly believe the HR department never got the message? or do you think has i do they chose not to act on the message?


confused

I wanna WHAT?

THe employer sounds fair enough to me - you can't just demand time off without notice, and your attitude is what has finished off UK industry. Because of this I have moved my business overseas - I look after people and don't expect an attitude like that.

As I said, if you want to take that attitude then you can be top of the list when it comes to getting the boot time then I know who will be first out.

So, when the big tribunal case finishes me off, where does your job go?
Ah yes, forgot about that.

I hardly think taking an aggresive stand over an issue where it is the OP's responsibility to ensure that he contacts his HR department in good time and follows up that request, and then hope that it is convenient for the OP to take that leave, is the answer.


In one breath i'd hate to be your boss, and in the next would quite enjoy sending you down the road.