Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Time off work at Christmas

125 replies

Weeantwee · 10/10/2013 11:44

DH has had to work every Christmas Eve and Boxing day for the past 6 years (he works in retail) and on most of these occasions he has either been happy to do so (he's a 'yes' person) or been told that there is no one else and he has to work.

This year we want to spend Christmas with my family who live nearly 300 miles away. DH has never spent Christmas away from his family and this is the first Christmas since we've been married. But he has been told yet again that he needs to work. This time the reason he has been given, by the new boss is 'priority has to be given to students whose family homes are far away and staff who have children.'

AIBU to think that DH is being unfairly treated because he is a full time employee and hasn't impregnated his wife yet?!

Maybe that's going a bit far, but I'm upset that as our first Christmas as a married couple I'm having to choose between staying with DH or going down to my mum who I don't see often and who also turns 60 on Boxing day :(

OP posts:

PeppiNephrine · 10/10/2013 12:30

English is not my first language, I don't know all the terminology and don't pretend to.
The fact remains that to give parents special treatment that nonparents are refused is unfair and discriminatory. And he should say so.

Original poster

Weeantwee · 10/10/2013 12:30

For the record, DH wouldn't be able to jack his job in because of this. His life wouldn't be worth living as far as I'm concerned

OP posts:

flowery · 10/10/2013 12:32

The difference Peppi is that the Equality Act says an employer can't treat people less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Having no children is not one of those protected characteristics. Gender is, pregnancy/maternity are, plus race, religion etc etc. But having no children is not protected.

I know you weren't looking for legal advice OP, but I just feel the need to respond when people give inaccurate legal advice. I agree with you that a bit more assertiveness is required, perhaps with support of other non-parents?

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 10/10/2013 12:33

Well, exactly, op. i do understand how you're feeling, and I sympathise, but I think it's a case of "suck it up" for the moment. Pippi, it does look unfair, but at the same time if the policy is to prioritise staff with dc, op and her dh may well benefit in the future.

hermioneweasley · 10/10/2013 12:34

Flowery - you are quite right to correct when inaccurate "information" is given.

This is how myths such as "they can't sack you if you're signed off by a doctor" get spread and believed.

Beastofburden · 10/10/2013 12:34

People with young children are entitled to request flexible hours for the purpose of looking after said children, not for other purposes such as having a christmas pissup. Its a common policy but I suspect not one that would easily defended in a more formal context.

We get round this by offering alternative days off at other times to anyone who has a different religious festival they'd rather celebrate. We largely shut down anyway over Xmas, so its not an issue.

Actually Id be more worried about never having two days off at once. Thats a much bigger issue IMHO for the future.

olgaga · 10/10/2013 12:40

Yes but Pippi you have to belong to a group protected by the law.

Employers discriminate all the time - they would never be able to choose an employee if they didn't. Discrimination is lawful unless that discrimination is on the grounds of your race, sex, disability etc.

This wouldn't get past first base with an ET application.

NomDeOrdinateur · 10/10/2013 12:40

It's very unfair, OP, but I don't see what your DH can do other than (respectfully and assertively) put his case to his manager, or look for a different job where this stipulation isn't in place .

Two vaguely related questions, concerning priority leave during the holidays for parents:

What happens if both parents (or a single parent) works in a sector where Christmas Day and BH working (especially Christmas and New Year) is the norm, and they don't have friends or family to fall back on? I don't know any CM or nurseries which work those days, and very few people can afford a nanny for the sake of such rare occurrences, but the alternative (finding a stranger on the internet) doesn't really seem like an acceptable thing to ask of an employee.

Also - what happens with childless couples in which one person is a teacher?

I'd love to know the answers - I've never really thought about this before.

PeppiNephrine · 10/10/2013 12:42

The act isn't the be all and end all, you can't do whatever you like if its not overtly mentioned in discrimination legislation. You can't, for instance, tell the ugly women to clean the toilets while the pretty ones have another tea break, even though as far as I am aware looks are not covered in the Act.

olgaga · 10/10/2013 12:48

The act is indeed the be all and end all if you want to bring an ET case. Which, by the way, is no longer free.

flowery · 10/10/2013 12:48

But to make a successful legal claim a claimant needs to be able to point to which law has been breached. You can't just go to a tribunal, stamp your feet and say "it's not fair".

You may be of the view that people without children should be protected against discrimination, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are not.

hermioneweasley · 10/10/2013 12:52

Pippi, the Act is absolutely the be all and end all of discrimination cases. If you can't identify which protected characteristic you are covered by, then you have no case.

olgaga · 10/10/2013 12:52

Pippa this may help you get an understanding of what unlawful discrimination is, compared to a policy which is seems unfair.

olgaga · 10/10/2013 12:55

*that should have been "which simply seems unfair to some people".

livinginwonderland · 10/10/2013 12:58

I work retail and that's very unfair. Our company have the policy "If you're rostered that day, you work it". People still swap around - I got off working Boxing Day because a colleague's DD was with her dad and she'd have been on her own, so she volunteered to work. This year I don't have to work because it's not my rostered day. But next year, I'll be working both Christmas Eve and Boxing Day (assuming my shifts stay the same).

Our company policy is nobody can book leave in December, but if you want a day off for say, a Nativity play or Carol service or something, you can take it so long as you can cover your hours. Your DH needs to talk to HR and try and get a better system in place. If there are any other colleagues in his position, get them to talk to HR too.

PeppiNephrine · 10/10/2013 12:59

Bloody hell you lot are hard work. I'm not saying the man should go a tribunal, I'm saying he should tell the boss its not bloody fair. The legal stuff is just backing up the point. I give up.

It's not a policy that "seems unfair to some people", it is a policy which is blatantly unfair. Some things are just obvious.

flowery · 10/10/2013 13:03

"It doesn't need to tick a particular box, if this went to an employment tribunal it would be a clear win for the employee.

OP, he needs to tell his boss straight: you can't do that, it is not fair, and I am having the days off at christmas. Unless the boss is a fool who wants a constructive dismissal case against him, which he would lose, he will back down."

You were not saying he should just tell his boss it is unfair. You were specifically and clearly several times advising the OP that it was illegal discrimination and that her DH could bring a successful tribunal claim.

Giving legal advice as fact when you have no legal expertise or knowledge is completely irresponsible. It's nothing to do with any of us being "hard work".

flowery · 10/10/2013 13:05

Oh, and for future reference, when someone advises you that you are wrong and giving inaccurate advice, the gracious and mature thing to do is to thank the person/people for pointing it out and apologise to the person you advised incorrectly.

Minnieisthedevilmouse · 10/10/2013 13:08

It's discrimination. Simply put. It's illegal. I doubt you have ability to do much though as obvs you need the job to pay bills....?

Minnieisthedevilmouse · 10/10/2013 13:09

I have hr but not legal experience. I know I couldn't get away with it where I worked.

RafflesWay · 10/10/2013 13:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

harverina · 10/10/2013 13:12

I would get him to tell his boss that you have booked and paid for the tickets as you assumed that since he has worked Christmas and new year for 6 years, getting some time off this year for a special family occasion would not be a problem.

If he is usually so accommodating, I can't see him being sacked for saying he won't be available Christmas week.

I have children but I still valued family time at Christmas prior to having dd and I would expect a system to be worked out that's fair to all employees - in my work we usually get one or the other off and that's a fair compromise.

JessePinkmansWitch · 10/10/2013 13:21

That is shocking! When I worked in retail we always rotated between us who would get, Christmas Eve, Boxing Day and New Year's Eve off. I mostly worked Christmas Eve and Boxing Day back then and had New Year's Day off so I could party (back in my heyday ), and other's appreciated having Christmas off and didn't mind working New Year.

I think if I was your DH I'd suddenly be getting a sickness bug around Christmas time that would require at least 4 days recovery. Let them call in some other mug for a change.

hermioneweasley · 10/10/2013 13:25

Not another one! Minnie, it is NOT unlawful discrimination (it's
Lawful/unlawful in civil law, legal/illegal in criminal). Having kids or not having kids is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

If you currently work in Hr you might need some refresher training.

PeppiNephrine · 10/10/2013 13:31

You seem to be saying that employers in the UK can treat their employees however they want as long as it isn't specifically mentioned in legislation? So my scenario above would be fine, would it, and no-one would be remotely interested in better looking people getting perks that others didn't?
What if I decided that all the parents in my company could have big comfy chairs and nice desks with free food, and 3o days off a year, while the nonparents had to sit on the floor to work and have only 2o days off a year? Would that be ok with everyone and nobody could legally touch me?
Genuine curiosity.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5