Is this right?

[stacysmom]

Hi there, I was wondering if anyone had any words of wisdom for me before I tell my employer to bog off and I quit a job I really need.

Brief backstory: 1 year maternity leave from full time role. Returned to take a part time mat leave cover contract for 9 months, same department, new boss who made sure I was kept on continuous service despite a gap of about 2 weeks between colleague leaving and me taking over. I book a holiday for the end of this contract and am them offered another in a different team (again, same department, different team - the one I worked for pre-mat leave).

As a result of not having enough annual leave to cover my holiday I had a 1 week break in service which meant I lost continuous employment of 5 years. So far, so annoying.

Now, this contract is up and I have been asked the following:

So, finally managed to speak to ** in HR about extending your contract for another 6 months. Her only concern is that this would take you up to a year's continuous service and you know how they get all twitchy and think you're going to start demanding a desk and a full time job as you would then technically be allowed the same employment rights as a permanent employee. She's asked that you take a break of at least 4 weeks at some stage over the next 6 months - a total pain but they're not budging on this one!

To say that a 4 week unpaid break is a total pain is something of an understatement. And why 4 weeks when previously 1 week was enough? Has anyone else encountered this or are they taking the mick? Any thoughts greatfully received, thanks.

Hmm... I don't know the legalities but this all sounds a bit naughty.

I would throw it back to them saying that 4 weeks doesn't suit you for whatever reasons (i.e. need constant earnings, blah, blah, blah). See what they say. Be nice but push it if you have to. If they won't bend and it doesn't suit you then I would go along with it but start looking for another job. It will be far more effort and more costly for them to find another member of staff but that's they're prerogative I guess.

If your contract ended in one team and they had a new contract to keep you on but starting a week later, they should have preserved your continuity of service. You should have been taking unpaid leave for that one week but remained employed.

If they are saying your employment ended at the end of that contract, did they pay you redundancy pay? Thought not. If they had told you your employment was ending because there was no role for you starting immediately, but there was one starting a week later, and you had claimed redundancy, I imagine they would have quickly decided that in fact your continuity would be preserved with you taking unpaid leave for a week.

The fact that they want you to take a break of four weeks to break your service indicates that they are perfectly aware that a week is not enough to do that.

Aha! Brilliant, thank you both Chupa and Flowery. I had my doubts they were being totally straight with me. I am going to push it back to them and say I can't possibly take 4 weeks off unpaid and question exactly why one week was enough previously.

It wasn't enough, and I think you should challenge that as 5 years continuous service is a lot to write off. As far as I'm concerned your continuous employment should have been preserved and I think for the difference it would make in terms of redundancy pay etc it's worth addressing.

I've just been going through the paperwork and found out that they offered me the second contract 2 days before writing to confirm my last day of employment on the first! So yes, I should have asked for redundancy!

Why did you book a holiday when you didnt have enough leave to cover it?

Very relevant question. There was no whiff of the second contract when the holiday was booked, I assumed I was going to be out of work when the first ended.