To think this is not what parental leave is for?

[Friendlybreadbin]

I may well BU but interested in people’s opinions. My company offers a fairly standard 25 days plus bank holidays leave package. New colleague comes from a company where they had been for over 20 years and so had got up to 30 days, their old company also offered a ‘buy an additional 10 days leave’ package. Our company doesn’t. Having passed their 3 month probation period (where they also took a lot of leave) they are using leave days like they are going out of fashion, and have already had a skiing holiday and an all inclusive this year. As well as lots of other random days off, it’s seems rare they work a full week. Have been openly saying that they intend to take unpaid leave because they can’t see how they will possibly manage on 25 days when they were used to 40 days and asking how does anyone do that with kids? I have not dissimilar aged kids and have managed with 25 days for my whole career. There are no special needs or circumstances. Their job is flexible and from home.
AIBU that they should learn to manage within their holiday allowance that they accepted by contract? Or as the extra leave is unpaid is this an acceptable strategy? It seems to me they intend to exploit parental leave just because they feel entitled to more holiday than they are contracted to have.
Our company charges customers rates for their time and will therefore lose revenue as we can’t charge when they are OOO. I am their line manager.
I have managed people for 20 years and have never come across anyone with this attitude before, when I have managed people who have taken parental leave it has been for understandable reasons.

I don't understand the issue- if it can't be facilitated surely then the time off, paid or otherwise just isn't granted?

Legally employers cannot refuse unpaid parental leave (provided the employee has been there a year or more). They can defer it up to 6 months, if there is a significant business reason, but cannot refuse it.

They have a sense of entitlement to something they are legally entitled to. Don't we all?

Legally employers cannot refuse unpaid parental leave (provided the employee has been there a year or more).

But he hasn’t been there a year RTFT

YANBU. Sack him. He's not been there two years so just go through the process and get rid.

You don't apply for a job, knowing ALL the benefits that are being offered, take the job and then say "You know what, I think I'm special and deserve more than we agreed and more than my colleagues".

His entitled attitude is costing the company money, will piss off his colleagues, which will eventually cost the company more money. No, sorry, you don't sign a contract intending to breach it from day one. Get rid before the cancer spreads.

I have read the full thread, I know he hasn’t been there more than a year. See my first response. The thing is, he will presumably still be there next year so the problem doesn’t just go away.

Anyway the poster I was responding to didn’t appear to realise that employers ever have to allow this kind of leave, this is the point I was making.

Hmmm he may not be there for a full year, there’s a way to go on that.

Next year if he is still there is a new bridge to cross if and when you get there.

I'm an employer. He is within his rights to use parental leave, obviously, but ensure you are au-fait with the rules. Parental leave is limited to a maximum of 18 weeks per child up to their 18th birthday. You should, therefore, find out from their previous employer if they have previously used any parental leave there, to keep a record of it.

Then, it must be taken in whole weeks, not individual days, unless your employer agrees otherwise. At this point, check your company's employee handbook and the contracts to see whether there are any specific references to this.

Our handbook says "If you are entitled to take parental leave... you should discuss your needs with a Director, who will identify your entitlements and look at the proposed leave periods dependent upon your child's particular circumstances and the operational aspects of the business".

The rules say that leave can't be postponed/delayed if the employer doesn't have a "significant reason", e.g. it would cause serious disruption to the business. Therefore you can postpone it if it does cause issues. If you do postpone it as employer you have to write to them within 7 days of the original request explaining why, suggest a new start date (within 6 months of the requested date) and you can't amend the amount of leave being requested.

So, ultimately, if agreeing to it creates a massive problem, you can tell him no and suggest an alternative date but firstly, he must properly request it (not demand or expect it) and you must respond within the rules.

Sorry if this has all been said elsewhere - I started typing it ages ago and got waylaid!

Will he meet his KPIs? I'd be looking for an early performance review to outline the danger of taking excessive leave.

And as @Ferferksake says they can pretty much give him notice in the first 2 years. Whatever the legal entitlement there are very few employers who’d be impressed if for example he took 4 weeks parental leave to go on ski trips with the lads.

Parental leave is an odd one, I’ve taken it in the past and would do so again but other mumsnetters when I’ve said about it have just been of the opinion they’d just end up getting sacked.

”You know what, I think I'm special and deserve more than we agreed and more than my colleagues".

The law agrees with him. I don’t think it’s right, but that’s irrelevant.

You can’t sack people for requesting leave they’re legally entitled to.

I mean, you could, but wtf

I mean, you could, but wtf

Well quite you could. People get sacked/ managed out/ made ‘redundant’ for all manner of reasons. That’s the reality of work.

They agreed on annual leave. They are also entitled to parental leave as well. Their colleagues are also entitled to parental leave as well (if they meet the requirements).

So no, they may not believe themselves to be any different to anyone else.

@shammalammadingdong The law does, though. It grants only certain employees a right to additional unpaid time off which cannot be refused and which can be used for any purpose. Whether those employees believe they deserve it more than their colleagues who don’t have that right is irrelevant - the law believes it.

It sounds like he is abiding by company policy.

If you have an issue with the policy - take it up with HR.

Also if you are genuinely thinking of refusing leave just because 'you coped' or you feel the business is genuinely suffering - speak to HR first. I would have thought that company policy trumps the other reasons.

If the business is suffering can you give him clients with less face time?

He’s not legally entitled to unpaid leave. He doesn’t have service for parental leave. That said it’s a bit shitty to sack him for leave they’ve let him take instead of properly managing him!

You are their manager, just decline the unpaid leave request (obviously you can’t do this without very good reason if they request parental leave, which they are entitled to if they have a child under 5). But you can if they just request unpaid leave

But that’s not the issue OP had, she didn’t care he’s not entitled to it yet (but he will be if he’s there next year).

It’s the concept of hun wanting any leave above AL that’s the issue.

Thank god my employers aren’t like this.

Its not okay to sack people for expressing they wish to take leave they will at some point become legally entitled to.

Yes but thats not the point. PP are calling someone entitled for wanting to take parental leave. Well ,they are entitled. It's not about believing themselves to be special.

Well no. They should be managing him properly and saying no if the unpaid leave arrangement isn’t feasible.

I am very surprised that you don't appear to have a company policy on unpaid leave, and that you appear to have no say on when this person takes unpaid leave.

If your company really has no policy on this, then it needs one quickly. Once this becomes established practice for one person, others will want it too, and you will lose the ability to plan your business. Better to agree on a fair and equitable policy for all.

I think the poster above calling this survivorship bias is spot-on really. I’m guilty of this myself.

Probably helps to put it into perspective. If you think he’s really after 40 days holiday rather than 25, that’s just 5% of a years working days difference. So 95% of the time he’ll be there, hopefully suitably energised (!) contributing to the business.

If they get the job done when they're in, and the company won't suffer massively then I'd grant unpaid leave. Tbh i would just grant unpaid leave if its a reasonable time amount, because people being well rested and happy is very important. If you have healthy happy people to work with, that live life that's really nice. Plus people who are rested and happy will probably work a lot more effectively and be more loyal to a company.

I think you could learn from this person taking more leave. Might do you good. :)
Live life :)