To think my husband's employer has this wrong and can't actually do this?

[MrsDeTamble]

I'm wondering if anyone could give me advice on a situation my husband is in at work.

He received a promotion last year meaning he would be on an annual salary rather than an hourly rate. Holidays previously were worked out on an hourly basis i.e 8 hours = 1 day off, 35.5 hours = 1 week off and each employee had so many hours per year holiday.

Now he is on a salary, holidays are taken on a day by day basis (x amount of days per year). This didn't work out as advantageously as previously as the firm closes at lunch time on Fri - previously to have a Fri off, it would have cost him 5 hours of holiday whereas now he has to take a full day, no half days are allowed so if he takes a Friday off, he in effect loses half a days holiday as the firm is closed anyway. He was also given an extra weeks holiday as part of the promotion package. I hope this makes sense?!

I have recently gone back to work 3 days per week. To save money on child care, we put in a request that my husband be able to consendse his week into 4 days, working his 35.5 hours over 4 days rather than 5. We are lucky that the firm have said yes and so far it's working well. However today he tells me that because he no longer works Friday, the firm are taking 5 days holiday away from him.

I don't believe that a. They're actually allowed to do that and b. I am sure he is entitled to his full holidays as he has not reduced his working hours, he is just doing the hours in a shorter period of time.

I can understand why the firm thinks they should do this, my husband would only have to take 4 days off to get a full week away but I believe the answer is to go back to counting holidays in hours rather than days like the people who are paid an hour rate have it. So instead of having 25 days per year, he should have 177.5 hours and to take a week off it should cost him 35.5 hours.

Does this make any sense? Am I right or are the firm right? Can they just take a weeks holiday away from an employee like that?

What really really riles me is he often works more hours than he is paid for anyway!

Thanks - sorry it's so long!

He would just use 4 days to have a whole week off, rather than 5.

Yes, this. And he no longer has to waste a full day on taking a friday off for a long weekend. He is probably better off.

lottiegarbanzo

I think he's working FT hours, so is entitled to a FT holiday allocation. Doesn't matter if that's granted in hours or days

You can't squeeze a full week away, into a four day holiday!

He doesn't have to. He takes 4 days leave for the days he works (Mon-Thurs) and as he doesn't work Fri-Sun he doesn't have to take annual leave for them. So yes, he will get a week's holiday by only using 4 days annual leave.

Ha, rather, it doesn't matter if it's in hours or in weeks.

If it's in days he'd get an unfair advantage, as he only needs to book four days to gain a week off. So 25 days would give him 6 weeks and a day hols each year but a colleague would get only five weeks.

Yes that is right - people where I work get their holiday on a pro rata basis, so if we get four weeks, full timers get 20 days, part timers working four days a week get 16 days etc, regardless of the number of hours they work.

Lottie you can if the four days leave has a three day weekend after it.

I think it's ok for his employers to apply the change part way through the year as each of his days off are now worth more than they were before, in terms of time that the employer loses from him, iykwim.

It should be pro-rated, so for the part of the year that he worked 5 days, he should have the full entitlement, then for the part of the year he has condensed his hours, then he should have the 'reduced' entitlement.

If you tell us the holiday year period, and the date that his contract changed, we can work out the correct entitlement.

Statutory minimum is 5.6 weeks off including public holidays, so 5.6 weeks x 4 days/week = 22.4 days for a full leave year. If they don't 'do' half days, then I think they would need to round it up to 23.

So 28 days for the period he worked 5 days; 23 for the portion of the year he worked 4 days.

Right I've got it straight in my head, the firm are correct. It's just a bit of a shock when you save holidays in case of an emergency and now they're suddenly gone.

Owl you're right I suppose on the bright side he doesn't have to waste half a day's holiday on Fridays any more so that does work to his advantage.

Thanks everyone!

The only thing you need to be concerned about is if they require him in on a Friday then he would be entitled to a day in lieu.

Ellypoo his holidays run from Jan to Dec, 25 days per year. He started this new working pattern on 01.09 of this year.

What really really riles me is he often works more hours than he is paid for anyway!

I've never ever had a job where I could just work my contracted hours!

It does sound right as his holidays will be pro rata as to the number of days a week he works. I know it's complicated but that's how it usually works.

Sounds right to me, my works is similar

I would tentatively disagree with ellypoo, as each day's leave now covers more hours, so they may be within their rights to reduce the number of days he has accumulated to reflect that his days are no longer the same length as when he accumulated the holiday. Would need an HR expert to confirm either way (and it may well depend on his contract).

Ok so for 2/3 of the year (the 8mths from Jan to end of August) he will have 2/3 of 25 days (so 16.6 days).

For 1/3 of the year (from Sept to dec) he will have 1/3 of 20 days so 6.6 days.

In total for this year he will be getting 23.2 days. He might have to take a hit on the .6 bits though - it depends if they will deal in part days in this instance.

Right, I assume that these are excluding public holidays:

25 days for 8 full months = (25/12x8) = 16.666
20 days for 4 full months = (25/12 x 4) = 6.666

Total 23.3 days + public holidays. From the start of his next leave year, it would be 20 days + public holidays.

That's a good point hopefully - I hadn't considered that!

That does sound right to me; I work compressed hours over a 9 day fortnight. My working day is now 8 hrs 20 mins instead of 7 hrs 30 mins, but if I take a day of annual leave that only counts as 7 hrs 30 mins. So if I take 5 days off I owe work an extra 5 x 50 mins on top of my normal working days, which I am allowed to make up by working late etc.

The other way to approach this would be to give me my holiday allowance in days rather than hours, in which case it would reduce from 29 days at 7hrs 30 mins each to 26 days at 8hrs 20mims each. It sounds like they have done the latter with your husband.

I'm finding this really interesting, because I work 30 hours (so 4 9-5 days) over 5 days, so I can pick DD up from school 3 days a week. But I only get 20 days leave, the same as my colleagues who work their 30 hours over 4 days. Are you all saying I should get 25 days because I work 5 days?

Cos that ain't gonna fly with my colleagues, I can tell you that!

I think what is confusing the OP is that the company is saying leave has to be taken as whole days, rather than by hour or whatever. It is further complicated by the normal working week being a half day on Friday, but if you want Friday off it still counts as a full day. So to the OP a day is just a day.

e.g. assume it's a 36 hour week. They work 8 hours Mon-Thurs and 4 hours Friday. If there are 30 days leave, and you take half of them on a Friday, that's 180 hours, but if you take none on a Friday it would be 240 hours. Whereas for the DH (assuming 4/5 of 30 days = 24 days, and 9 hour working days), he gets 216 hours off.

It does seem a bit silly that they don't let people take half days, but I don't know what type of job it is. There could be good reasons.

Oh I think I might agree with hopefully.

He's had to trade in 1.25 of his accrued holiday days to buy 1 (longer) day of new holiday.

hopefully - that didn't happen when I changed my working patterns.

As the whole crux of this post is about holidays for salaried staff being based on days not hours, I think it is unlikely they would do this to OP's DH as he has been a salaried member of staff for the whole calendar year.

If hes holidays start again im dec hasnt he already taken most of them anyway?

I've not read the whole thread (sorry!) but wanted to quickly answer anyway as my DH also condenses his hours into a 4 day week.

They calculate my DH's holiday based on a percentage. So, he works 80% of the full working week, he gets 80% of the holidays.

He works 7 hours a week for 4 days a week (28 hours) [actually he does loads more and doesn't get overtime but that is something else!]

The usual allowance for holiday is 20 days (plus bank holidays) so he gets 16 days BUT his work is also allowed to only give him 80% of the bank holidays, despite the fact they are closed on bhs. This means as there are 8 bank holidays, he loses 2 days of his own holiday which he has to "take" as the company is closed.

So, your DH's employer is correct, I'm afraid, and not unusual in their way of calculating it. What have they said about bank holidays?

Could your DH work an extra hour each of the other days of the week to "make up" the half day (4 hours) he is missing on the Friday and therefore not lose his holiday entitlement? I know his hols are worked out on a day by day basis, but HR probably have a certain amount of flexibility.

Hope this helps.

Please don't ask here. Go to your union. They will be able to give you your exact legal position. Whether you act on that or not is up to you. If your husband is not a member of the union then he could join, even if just for this. Union subs aren't outrageous and cheaper than an employment lawyer.