Time off work at Christmas

[Weeantwee]

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 :(

YANBU at all I worked in retail most of my adult life and it was always turns about who had christmas and newyear off. Definitely contact HR

Treat employees however they want? No. Treat people not covered by a protected group less favourably? Yes, as long as no other legal requirement is breached in the process (which would be the case in your example of only giving people 20 days holiday).

Treating people differently is not sensible in terms of staff morale and retention, which is why your examples are extreme and not something sensible employers would consider a good idea.

But there's nothing unlawful about giving some staff comfy chairs and some staff not. Same as there's nothing unlawful about some staff having perks other staff don't get generally.

You didn't actually answer my post. Could I legally do that, never mind whether its a good idea or not?

Isn't 20 the legal minimum? If not, then sub in whatever the legal min is, but giving parents ten days more than that.

Peppi. An employer has to act within express and implied terms of contract, and meet relevant legislation. The example you use of giving some comfy chairs and some having to sit on the floor would probably be a breach of implied terms, and therefore the floor sitting employee could resign and try and argue constructive dismissal.

Saying that parents get one more day's annual leave would probably be reasonable, and probably is the policy in some places. I know an employer that gives women a spa day when they've given birth - not available for female employees who haven't given birth.

Shrugs It's retail. That's what you do. Work the holidays. He would have known that before he went into the profession. I think I worked every Christmas for about 12 years at one point. Didn't bother me in the slightest.

DH is now in retail and is working this Christmas. Our first one with a baby.

So actually, I think you just need to suck it up! You don't even have kids, so seriously, how big a deal is Christmas? Even with a baby, I would say that it's more important to people who have kids 4+.

Go to your mum's at New Year. Or in January.

Minnie you work in HR? I'm astonished by your ignorance if you do. Although having said that, some of the worst performers at Employment Tribunals are clueless HR bods.

You too need to read this.

Far too many people have been taking cases to ET on the basis of crap advice from people like you. They represent themselves, for no cost, but without a hope in hell of making a case.

This is why Employment Tribunals are proposing to bring in fees of over £1000 for discrimination and UDL cases. There is a JR on this, I think 22 October.

Peppi I very clearly stated that yes you could treat people not covered by a protected characteristic less favourably, as long as no other legal requirement was breached in the process.

I agree with Hermione that provided chairs would be an implied term, but differing levels of comfort would be legally fine.

Clear enough?

The only fair way is for everyone to take turns. Your DH shouldn't have to justify why he wants the time off, that's none of their business. All that is their business is that he has worked the last 6 years and it's his turn.

Your DH will have to be more assertive and go above the new boss's head if necessary/possible. It won't be company policy to allow certain people Christmas off and not others, this is just this manager's unilateral decision.

Peppi it's up to employers to decide their policies as long as they are in compliance with Employment Legislation and in accordance with the contract of employment it issues to staff.

Being a non-parent is not a protected characteristic. You obviously haven't bothered reading the CAB information I linked to. By all means remain in ignorance if you wish - that's your choice. But don't give incorrect advice to others.

An employer who acted in the extreme way you describe would soon find it was counterproductive in terms of recruiting and retaining staff, even if it was legal.

In fact many places do provide different levels of comfort based on seniority - offices, bigger desks, kitchen facilities, nicer chairs, business class travel etc.

In fact, in the tribunal offices where I sit, the judges get a bigger chair than the lay members

The problem we have here is that those of us who are lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc, are used to the idea that you musn't give legal/ financial/ medical advice if you don't know enough to do so responsibly- either about the law/money/medicine, or about the case and/or the client. We tink the others are being unprofessional and irresponsible.

People who have no such training think it's fine to give an opinion emphatically and say things like "it's discrimination- sue the bastard" just as a personal thought in conversation. They think we are being anal and ridiculous and taking ourselves far too seriously.

The lesson is- never get your professional advice off the internet. No responsible person would advise you in that way in the first place.

My DS is suffering from the opposite side of the Christmas working thing. We live in Newcastle and he is at Uni in Leeds and desperate to get part time work. He was offered a job yesterday but only if he could work over Christmas which would have meant him staying away for Christmas in a house on his own. He had to turn the work down. Wouldn't you think that big stores could have the flexibility with their workforce to be able to accommodate students with a home and term time job?

Are the days he has to work over Christmas his contracted days?

How frustrating- but I can see it would be a big spreadsheet! I have a feeling M&S used to offer that - a linked job in two stores, one in term time and another in holidays. Dont know if they still do?

If you've got it in writing that people with children have priority then I'd take it to HR and raise an internal grievance, can't hurt & the boss can't treat you unfairly because you've raised it.

It's not right to give preference to someone else for an arbitrary reason unrelated to work.

Having kids shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how one person is treated to another, and while not "discrimination" it's not ideal. Just because someone has decided to spawn, it doesn't meant they're automatically entitled to the best time off!!

Worst case scenario, get DH to have a chat with his boss and HR and get it in writing that he will be having next Christmas off as he's submitting his leave request now....

I think the better strategy would be to remind his manager that he has had to work Christmas for the last 6 years. If his manager won't reconsider, then raise a grievance through HR.

However, he needs to balance that against whether he enjoys the job, whether it is secure, the terms and conditions otherwise are generally good.

Plus the fact that if you do have children, he will then enjoy preferential treatment which other retail employers may not offer.

Hermione says differently, what with the implied terms of contract etc. Seems like its not just about the pure legislation.

Just because someone has decided to spawn, it doesn't meant they're automatically entitled to the best time off!!

Charmingly put. But at this particular employer, it does mean that, because that's their policy.

I think it might be a good idea to look to the future. Jobs in retail where you can take time off at Christmas to be with your family must be like gold dust.

I would say that is unfair - and it should be in turns. just because you don't have DC doesn't mean you shouldn't get to spend time with family - he needs to put his foot down! I worked somewhere that had this unofficial policy but I questioned it as I wanted to go home a family and was allowed to in the end. A couple of more local people with kids said they would take their turn so that I could go. following year i did Xmas.

You don't even have kids, so seriously, how big a deal is Christmas?

Suggesting that because we don't have kids, Christmas is irrelevant and not a big deal is unfair. Christmas is about family, that doesn't matter whether we have young children or not, we still have a family.

This is probably the attitude that leads to employers saying that parents can have time off and childless people can't in the first place.

passmetheprozac He can work any given day of the week so I don't know what his official contracted days are It's fair enough to have to work contracted days over Christmas if that is the rule that applies to everybody, I don't have an issue with that. It's the fact that some of his colleagues who have children have been given the time off as a priority so he doesn't get a look in.

This wouldn't be a problem if we lived close to both families but we don't and as a naive newlywed I'm trying to have a balanced approach towards the holiday period.

I had a similar situation with a staff member once. We had a rule where you could either have Christmas or New Year off, not both. And they alternated each year.
This lady booked herself a flight to go home (24hr flight, so a long trip) to leave the day before Christmas Eve and obviously not come back until after New Year.
I insisted on sticking to the rules, and her argument was that she didn't go home very often, once every few years, and it was a long way etc. My argument in return was that the rule was in place to ensure everyone was treated the same, and that it wasn't my place to say whose plans were more important than anyone elses.

Why should someone going on a long journey home be treated differently than someone who wants to travel to the other end of the country for grandchildren, or someone who would have liked to spend a full christmas holiday period with a DP who is off.

Everyone has their own reasons for wanting time off at that time of year and it shouldn't be the employers place to prioritise them. Have a rule, stick with it and then everyone knows where they stand.

i am an employer so am at the back of the queue for holdiays, but we run a 'first come first served' system and it works well.

it means everyone gets a fair chance and once the organised people have put their holidays in the calendar, it helps everyone else to get sorted as well.

i am much more sympathetic to someone needing a day for emergency childcare than parents wanting to pull rank over the holiday period.

But OP, you're not even sure whether the problem is the employer's intransigence or your DH's reluctance to raise it!

Surely you need to talk to him first? Perhaps he has very good reasons for not wanting to rock the boat.

Thats not at all similar JudgeJodie.