To think if my colleague does this with her child then I should be able to as well… and it is unfair unlike what HR are saying?

[Hawua]

Colleague came back from maternity last year and used holiday 2 days a week, effectively working a 3 day week. This meant she could put her ds in nursery 3 days a week, saving quite a chunk of childcare cost.

We are exactly the same level and do the same job and joined in the same year, four years ago.

I am being told on my return from mat leave that I can’t use holiday like that and must take it all in one go. This means I will have full childcare costs while my colleague had 8 months worth of 3 day week (we have a lot of holiday allowance).

HR have said that the cost for childcare evens out as I am having six weeks off in one go, so saving a bulk in childcare that way? Am I missing something? they’ve also said my colleague is a single parent and so they made an extra flexible option for her, how is this fair?!

Where do you live that every month only has 28 days?

60 + days holiday... paid?? What on earth is the industry?

Obviously it's a average. It it was 2 days over 5 weeks then it would be 10 days a month which would be 80 days a month - which makes it even less fair!

OP's childcare costs are irrelevant and nothing to do with her employer or HR.

It's also not the case that an employer has to offer everyone the same thing just because they did it for Jane in accounts once in 2015.

The OP's employer HAS told her to take it in one go.

PP's have also mentioned that a precedent means nothing, which isnt strictly true. An employer 'instructing' someone how/when they must take their annual leave isnt 'illegal' as such, as long as the rule is applied to all staff. The OP's employer is acting in a demonstrably discriminatory way by applying annual leave conditions to one employee and not the other (and, in this case, the circumstances of both employees are identical).

That said, I still think a cordial approach is the best one.

The employer only suggested taking it all in one block as an alternative to the 2 days a week as a way to save on childcare. Nothing to makes us think they would deny OP’s request for ‘regular holidays’, 1-2 weeks here and there.

PP's have also mentioned that a precedent means nothing, which isnt strictly true. An employer 'instructing' someone how/when they must take their annual leave isnt 'illegal' as such, as long as the rule is applied to all staff. The OP's employer is acting in a demonstrably discriminatory way by applying annual leave conditions to one employee and not the other (and, in this case, the circumstances of both employees are identical).

But maybe the previous method of taking two days holiday/week didn't work out which is why they don't want to do it again?

Treating employees fairly doesn't mean treating them the same.

Its possible, though the OP hasn't said what reason her employer gave.
I'd've thought, from a needs of service POV, that 2 days per week would be preferrable to an employer than a long block lasting weeks. Either way, it's the same number of hours lost.

It may be that the colleague is also compressing her hours so using 1 day annual leave and working 4 days in 3 for the other. I can’t see how otherwise it would be possible to get 8 months worth out of it unless she was also using all of her annual leave for the next year which is a possibility I guess but if so, that isn’t necessarily great as it would mean never having a holiday or a proper mental break.

essentially employers don’t really have to give a shit about your childcare costs. They could have very valid reasons for not wanting you 3 days a week. You may have a better shot by putting in a proper flexible working request for part-time work.

@stichguru but you can't calculate fairness based on how many days someone has left of annual leave because it will depend on a lot of factors (although 60 for colleague seems unlikely and would suspect she's dropped to 4 days but is using it to work three).

Employee A goes on mat leave two weeks before her due date in December (the final month of the holiday year) and only used 2 days of her annual allowance for that year (unlikely but possible).
She carries the rest over which is (for sake of demonstration) 35 days.
She returns in January after a full year off. She now has those 35 days plus 37 accrued for year she was off. She also chooses to use the majority of the allowance she is currently accruing towards having two days a week. She takes no other time off that year.

Employee B goes on Mat leave in March but had a long Christmas holiday and chose to go off 3 weeks before officially starting mat leave.
She has used 20 of the 37 days owed.
She only takes nine months mat leave as doesn't want to be unpaid once SMP ends.
She carries over 17 days and chooses to use the new holiday year beginning as she returns in January to take holidays as she normally would - a week off at Easter, two in the summer, one at Christmas etc.

Employee A has upwards of 60 days to use for a 3 day week, employee B has 17 days but both had the same number of holiday days over a two year period.

The circumstances may not be identical. OP has no idea if the colleague has other factors that impact upon the decision being made. She may have an additional need like a disability or illness. She may be working compressed hours or reduced hours.

OP is clearly upset and concerned about returning to work, which most of us can empathise with and can relate to. The colleague’s situation is not her business. People giving her false hope is not fair and not accurate.

The OP was clear that her colleague was using annual leave, not compressed hours.
The OP hasnt come back, so its all ifs and buts, however IF there are mitigating circumstances for her colleague, such as illness, then that is an occupational health issue, and the employer IS seriously compromising employment law by having the colleague use annual leave for illness. IF its about personal circumstances, that too is unreasonable, because one persons 'personal circumstances' dont trump anothers (in terms of annual leave allocation).

I haven't sought to give the OP false hope. I think it was wise of her to seek thoughts on the situation, and decide what (if any) advice given is suitable.

Of course it’s financially the same! Say you take 6 weeks holiday in one lump that’s 6 weeks of childcare you’re not having to pay for. If you were to use those 6 weeks spread across a longer period it’s still only 6 weeks worth of childcare you’re not paying for.

I really doubt the company grants 64 days annual leave.

What might have happened is if the colleague returned to work in early January she would have been able to use most of her A/L before April (many run April-March A/L), then when it renewed they allowed her to continue to use her 2023-2024 entitlement in the same way.

Or if she retuned just before April, where it would have been impossible to use up her A/L in time, it was carried over into the new year.

It is nearly the end of January now so for the OP to use her A/L up she needs to take it all at once.

Everyone's situation is different.

I'd've thought, from a needs of service POV, that 2 days per week would be preferrable to an employer than a long block lasting weeks.

Personally I would find the opposite to be true.

If someone takes six weeks leave then in the nicest way, you just don't need to worry about them while they're off and someone can step up to cover them for a block of time if needed (or you can hire a temp). Whereas if they're off for two days each week for a year, that's a hell of a lot cover to find and is just plain inconvenient.

I mean you decided to have a baby right?

Oh dear. 😆 Well of course if one person has accrued 30 days leave and another person has accrued 64 days leave, then the one with 64 days leave might indeed save on childcare costs in a comparatively be sense.

But OP has 30 days leave. HR mentioned that if they delay starting childcare for six weeks (30 days) they save money and if they take 2 days off for 15 weeks (also 30 days) they save money. Obviously subject to the contract with the childcare provider.

But in any case, perhaps HR should not have gone into that detail, because childcare costs are nothing to do with them and they are under no obligation to help employees pay or make savings.

Did you ask them WHEN you had to take those 6 weeks? My company encourages us to take our accumulated annual leave at the end of our mat leave period, and accumulated bank holidays must be taken then. So officially my mat leave ended in September, but I actually went back to work 2 months later.
That's the only scenario where you would save money on nursery fees.

That's not how it works, I have never heard of nurseries or childminders letting you take a 6 weeks break in your contract. You pay for your place even if your child is on holiday, the only case where you don't is if you delay the start date (if they allow you to).

I think the assumption is that if she takes all her leave at the end of May leave and returns six weeks late, she will save those 6 weeks nursery fees.

Given that the poster also refer to taking the leave across a longer period of time, I don't think that's what they meant.

But I agree with you about taking the leave at the end of mat leave, that's likely what OP's HR meant

@Bearbookagainandagain

They are not taking a break though are they? The child has been born and mother has been on maternity leave. No nursery.

The mother works out when she is coming back to work and books into nursery from that date or thereabouts. So yes, if she is adding six weeks accrued annual leave to the end of maternity leave she can start at the nursery six weeks later than if she did not have annual leave to use up.

It’s not hard.

This, plus if your colleague asked first and there’s any overlap, it would be unsurprising for them to say sorry we can’t support both of you doing this at the same time.

your childcare etc isn’t really HRs problem, as others have said. It’s unlikely they’ll discuss that with you.

i am curious though - you’ve said your colleague is doing that for 8 months. That’s 69 days of holiday? Compared to your 30?

I know, that's exactly what I said... Twice.