Can my work do this? Ah!

[Workdilemmma]

So I have a new job, and gave notice (4 weeks) to my current job at the beginning of May, in writing to my manager over email. I wrote a letter of resignation and attached it and my manager wrote back and it was accepted etc.

I was told I would hear from HR regarding my left over annual leave/last day etc, but as I hadn’t heard from them I messaged today to ask if all was ok.

Well, it turns out that my manager never gave them my resignation or told them I was leaving- and HR have said that they can only accept my resignation from today’s date and if I was to leave before this, it would have to be out of my remaining annual leave balance.

I am due to finish on Friday, take a weeks annual leave and then start my new job. Can they really make me work four weeks if this wasn’t my fault? And will they take my annual leave balance from me if so?

Btw, our annual leave runs June- July and I’ve only take 3 days- so would be owed a bit I think.

I don't understand why so many posters just don't get it?!!

Definitely speak to ACAS. You are legally entitled to be paid your outstanding annual leave, and you have the evidence that your resignation was accepted. Surely HR's role here is only processing? Stand your ground. Make it clear that you will pursue this all the way to an ET if need be.

That dick of a manager should 'atone' for his failure to forward this to HR by sorting this out directly! All he had to do was cc them into his email accepting your resignation. What a dick!

OP will be paid for her holiday either way

This has become the latest 'cancel the cheque' hasn't it.

I can understand posters not getting it initially. The inability to read the numerous posts explaining it, including OP's, is just incredible.

😂
a lot of dense people on Mumsnet!

they PAYYOU for the two weeks holiday. You don't have two weeks of unpaid holiday ,it gets PAID. Money DOES change hands. It just doesn't get paid as a lump sum, it gets paid as if it was regular salary

NORMALLY. For usual holiday leave.

Not here, where HR are saying they are retaining it in lieu ie INSTEAD OF notice.

How is that so hard to comprehend??????

If you have checked your contract and it says to give notice to your line manager, then HR are wrong and your notice has been given and your last day is on Friday.

You need to write back to HR informing them again that notice was given on X date which was accepted and agreed with your manager as per your contract, so your last day will be Friday 19th May 2023.

You should then get paid a pro-rata amount of salary (depending on when you leave vs when you get paid) along with all outstanding unused holiday, again on a pro-rata basis depending when the holiday year falls.

HR are probably pooping their pants because they now need to work out your final pay and holiday in a short period of time!

OP, the employer cannot withhold holiday pay. This really shouldn't (lawfully) end up affecting you in any other way to what you planed, regardless of how they word it.

I'm going to assume you have 4 weeks annual leave left. You were originally planning to finish on date x and take 1 weeks annial leave, plus be paid 3 weeks left over holiday pay. Let's say that was finish this Friday (19th), be still in employment with current employer until 26th, then receive 3 weeks holiday pay owed to you.

If HR are saying you need to give notice now as they haven't received it, and you need to give 4 weeks notice, then give 4 weeks notice and take your annual leave in lieu of notice. This would still mean you can finish on Friday as you are essentially booking your left over 4 weeks leave in now. Your official end date would be June 16th, but your last working day would be this Friday 19th May.

In lieu literally means instead of. Taking annual leave in lieu of notice means taking annual leave instead of working your notice period. If HR have suggested otherwise they are wrong/mistaken.

The financial calculations/implications are the same. Whether you are paid for 3 weeks extra at the end of your current employment, or the payment overlaps with your new employment, income tax owed will still be the same. Being put on an BR/emergency tax code will mean you pay tax on all of your new job salary at 20% for that month. This is correct as you will have used your tax allowance in the same period/month as your last payment from previous employer. If you had 3 weeks owed annual leave paid on your last payment from current employer, it would be taxed at 20% too.

As previously poster said upthread, if anything you may be due extra holiday as you are officially working for longer.

I know what it means and in this instance I would understand it to mean that the company will be paying her 3 weeks ( or however long it is) of money labelled as AL in her wageslip (as she obviously wont be physically doing any work for them after Friday) instead of 3 weeks labelled as wages. In my head she d actually end up accuring a few hours extra AL because she ll technically be employed by them for 3 weeks longer. The only other difference I see is her not get a lump payment of last weeks wages and AL all together as she would have with her original plan, and thered be tax implications for getting a wage in her new place and this AL, but equally she d be heavily taxed if she got that lump payment from her current place so probably not much difference.
BUT having said all that Im not in the UK, here 'in lieu' would definitely not mean 'you are not getting paid for any AL!', Im very surprised to hear of any HR person putting that in writing in the UK if they really mean what most of you think they mean.

No they must accept when you put it in originally, if they deduct AL then it’s unlawful. Check your contract resignation procedures though.

@Caulidop

You are missing every salient point.

What you have described is a normal situation where a worker decides to use up their leave as part (or in full) of their notice period.

But they have still given notice correctly and with sufficient time.

What OP's HR are trying to claim is that no notice has been given, and her leaving date is the equivalent of OP just walking in & saying 'I'm leaving tomorrow'. In which case, they argue that retention of the leave entitlements serves as notice.

They are incorrect in their interpretation but your post is missing all the key points that are making this a problem for OP.

@MILLYmo0se

They are not. OP had bloody confirmed this multiple times.

Are they correct?

No.

Is this what they are saying?

Yes.

Should OP be able to sort it?

Also yes, with a firmly written email giving details of her notice being given.

Are you unable to read the OP's posts?

in lieu' would definitely not mean 'you are not getting paid for any AL!',

It would if they were arguing notice was not given so their accrued leave serves as notice (in lieu of 💁🏻‍♀️)

Absolutely not you can evidence the resignation and the original date it's nit your fault it wasn't passed on !!!!

Why are you berating posters for not being clear about a confusing (and quite possibly misunderstood) report about the OP losing their accrued holiday pay whilst talking absolute shite? Of course you can have 2 jobs, you'll just be taxed more in the one that HMRC thinks is your 2nd one.

OP, talk to your Manager and HR again. Your Manager has messed up. Your employer could only make a deduction from your wages if it is written into your contract and they can demonstrate a loss (ie they'd have to pay someone else to work for those 3 weeks). Most employers would do as many posters here have assumed and make you "take" your holiday for those 3 weeks (so pay you until the end of that period).

I really think there has been a miscommunication. No reputable company would suggest what you think they are saying.

Agree with this. Good luck Op as it sounds to me like you're just changing their arm!

While reading my post you missed the very important word 'HERE'. Reread it with that word this time and you will realise I am saying that the fact I am not in the UK may be influencing my reading of the situation, and that I cant imagine any HR dept HERE sending an email saying what you belueve to be saying.
Yes I am able to fully read the OPs posts, and yours, and I understand that the word 'in lieu' fits just as well into the scenario I painted as it does yours. That doesnt mean your scenario isnt correct, if HR are very stupid.

Op is leaving with holiday owing so wishes for the holiday pay to be put in her leaving cheque.

Hi, I work for a trade union. If you have handed your notice in as required in your contract (and it would normally be to your manager, that's how it works in most places)... the fact that your manager has not passed that on is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. You have done your bit, stand your ground, you don't need to atone because your manager fucked up. You are owed your outstanding holiday pay. Forward them your resignation and be very firm - you resigned in time.

whilst talking absolute shite?

Because I'm not.

It's not possible to have two jobs that require the same working hours, on the same days, taking the same time

Of course it isn't!

Is it possible to have two jobs concurrently or two roles that are worked at different parts of the day / week / month?

Of course. However that is NOT what the poster who raised this said - if OP was still employed f/t, they could not commence another f/t job.

It's not legality or tax just the laws of physics (and yes, has legal / tax implications).

Really unsure what's going on with basic reading comprehension on this thread. 😩

I cant imagine any HR dept HERE sending an email saying what you belueve to be saying.

No, I read your 'here'.

I'm also not in the UK.

In no jurisdiction should a company be trying to do what they are telling OP, but that's what they are saying.

Regardless of where you are, if a HR dept used 'in lieu' in the way they did with OP, they would mean exactly that - in place of notice, annual leave would be used. It's just language.

as required in your contract

Are posters not reading the thread at all? This point about checking contractual requirements has been made multiple times!

The interpretation of what HR are trying to say depends on this exactly.

This is not what OP said in her initial post, OP said:

'HR have said that they can only accept my resignation from today’s date and if I was to leave before this, it would have to be out of my remaining annual leave balance.'

In her next post OP says she'll be paid her normal wage, but not get the lump sum of owed leave paid.

It's not clear since what HR have actually said word for word or if anything in writing, but that initial comment and follow up would suggest they intend OP to take leave in lieu of notice. Ie. take 4 weeks paid leave, as opposed to being paid this as owed leave. It honestly sounds like a misunderstanding and badly worded by HR (quite possibly HR with a strop on).

Even if OP hadn't given notice until today, and has 4 weeks annual leave owed, there is no obvious reason why her company would not accept a leaving date 4 weeks from this Friday. She then has 4 weeks leave to take during her notice anyway, so last working day would be Friday.

Of course it's not physically possible to work 2 jibs at the exact time but that's not what OP is doing is it? Since OP wouldn't be working at original job, they'd be being paid holiday ...

You're talking crap tbh. Making it sound like you can't get paid by 2 jobs at the same time.

The suggestion from the poster who raised this was that op would be would be spending the last 3 weeks of her time with job 1, i.e. from Monday, on holiday, using up the annual leave she has accrued in place of the notice the HR department claim she hasn’t provided. Being on annual leave she will not have to do any actual work or go to any office for that job. Job 1 would pay her for this (as jobs do with paid holiday). At the end of the three weeks she will have used up her annual leave and have worked all the notice the HR think she ought to and her employment with job 1 will cease. During those 3 weeks OP would also be employed by new job 2, which she would attend and work as employees do when they aren’t on holiday. Job two would pay her, as employers do. So for three weeks she will be being paid by both jobs. The laws of physics do not get in the way of this arrangement.

She shouldn’t have to do this, because she gave notice in time as she was supposed to. But it’s not the laws of physics that would stop it from happening.

Ok, I've tried reading most of the responses but not all so apologies.

In principle, it is possible for an employer to seek to recover losses suffered as a result of a breach of contract (although this does not generally give them the right to withhold pay).

A breach of contract can include a failure to properly serve and work out the required period of notice (for example if the employer needs to hire more expensive agency staff to cover the employee's absence). These types of claim are uncommon because it is often very difficult for an employer to demonstrate that they have suffered a loss that flows from the breach.

The first thing is to establish is whether notice was validly served or not. You will need to refer to your contract for this (and possibly the staff handbook if any elements of that form part of your contract). Check the whole contract for this, not just the section on termination. Sometimes there is a separate clause that deals with notices.

I would establish this BEFORE you contact ACAS tomorrow as it will help them to give you the best advice.

If notice was not validly served it doesn't mean your employers are right in what they are saying/threatening but it does alter the nature of the argument that you use.

Hopefully ACAS will be able to give you some good pointers tomorrow, good luck!