Rolled up holidays

[BAJR]

@ Kevin....

[QUOTE]The fact that this case has not been appealed to the European court in the period since 2008 suggests to me that there is little chance of that court overruling the industrial tribunal. It's just another case of the British gover

[BAJR]

You are entitled to be paid during your statutory annual leave and contractual annual leave. Your holiday pay will be your normal weekly wage (excluding non-guaranteed overtime). If your pay varies from week to week, your holiday pay should be your average weekly wage over the previous 12 weeks.
Rolled-up holiday pay

Holiday pay should be paid for the time when you actually take your holiday. Your employer cannot include an amount for holiday pay in your hourly rate (called 'rolled-up holiday pay'). If your current contract still includes rolled-up pay, you and your employer should renegotiate it.

[Jack]

Am with Marcus, have never used up my leave entitlement yet, seem to have 8 unwanted days this year again (and most of those Bank Holidays were frankly completely pointless, not even anything decent on tv). Much rather have the cash

Ooo, I'll have your spare holidays Dino............I can't get enough time off!}

[Dinosaur]

There's also that dreadful week between Xmas and New Year when there's nowt on TV and no one seems to want to see us at work...thats another 3 days plus couple of BHs....

[Tillet]

In reply to Kevin the reason that I raised the issue of rolled up holidays is simply because the issue came up and there was a wide sperad feeling that the provisions of the working time directive effectively outlawed the practice. The case I refered to is not 'old' in the sence of being outdated; it sets out the current state of the law in England and the fact of the matter is that we are better knowing this than not. The ECJ ruling, IRLR (Industrial Relations Law Reports), 2006, 386 found that the practice was contrary to the provisions of the WTD and therefore unlawful but went on to say that sums paid by way of rolled up holiday pay would bre offset against payment owed to a worker for aspecific period of leave actually taken....in other words employers could still do it. Governments both current and previous could have plugged this loophole but have chosen not to do so. The issue for me is that rolled up holidays are likely to be imposed on short time and contract staff, precisely those who are in the weakest position to raise concerns with their employer and it is not a practice that I would like to see spread within archaeology. Similarly despite what the courts imagine the relationship between employer and employee is not an equal one. If someone starting a job is given a contract that includes rolled up holidays they can only reject it at the risk of rejecting the whole contract tand therfore the job itself! Whilst the practice remains legal in England, if we are serious about improving trems and conditions in archaeology, then we need to be reminding the employers of the provisions they must make as set out in my earlier post. Hopefully by doing so we will help to make the practice less appealing than it may appear on the surface.

[Jack]

I still don't get it. I may be dumb, or misunderstanding - my head is full of contexts and arguments for more money.............

Are you saying that on a short-term contract (say a 3-week dig) an employer forces the diggers to not take the...erm....the few days holiday they have accrued and pay them money instead? Whats the benefit to the employer doing this? Surely it'll cost the same to the employer whether the digger works or is on holiday? And surely (in most cases) it wont matter to the employee? (I may be missing the point)

I can see that on a project basis though, it would mean that the job would take less time if the diggers are all on site every day of the job.

Is the issue freedom of choice? As for us with contracts still have to ask to take a particular day/week off, the company still has to function, can't have everyone off on the same week if you wanna keep that competitive edge. But as I work for a reasonable company there's never been much of an issue.

Maybe there's an (non-too specific) example of excessive unreasonable enforcement of holiday rolling up that would help me understand the issue?

[ecmgardner]

I still don't get it. I may be dumb, or misunderstanding - my head is full of contexts and arguments for more money.............

Are you saying that on a short-term contract (say a 3-week dig) an employer forces the diggers to not take the...erm....the few days holiday they have accrued and pay them money instead? Whats the benefit to the employer doing this? Surely it'll cost the same to the employer whether the digger works or is on holiday? And surely (in most cases) it wont matter to the employee? (I may be missing the point)

I can see that on a project basis though, it would mean that the job would take less time if the diggers are all on site every day of the job.

Is the issue freedom of choice? As for us with contracts still have to ask to take a particular day/week off, the company still has to function, can't have everyone off on the same week if you wanna keep that competitive edge. But as I work for a reasonable company there's never been much of an issue.

Maybe there's an (non-too specific) example of excessive unreasonable enforcement of holiday rolling up that would help me understand the issue?

.... because all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

(Sorry Jack! Nothing personal, just couldn't hold it in.)
:p

[kevin wooldridge]

I still don't get it. I may be dumb, or misunderstanding - my head is full of contexts and arguments for more money.............

Is the issue freedom of choice? As for us with contracts still have to ask to take a particular day/week off, the company still has to function, can't have everyone off on the same week if you wanna keep that competitive edge. But as I work for a reasonable company there's never been much of an issue.

Maybe there's an (non-too specific) example of excessive unreasonable enforcement of holiday rolling up that would help me understand the issue?

The Working Time Directive which proscribes rolled-up holiday pay, is primarilly a Health and Safety directive. Its reasoning behind the limit of a 48 hour week is that to work longer hours on a continuous basis is harmful to health and the consequences of tiredness and stress related ailments caused through overwork, are potential hazards in day to day work activities.

Its reasoning on rolled-up holiday pay, particularly with contract staff, is that there might be circumstances where employees would work on consecutive contiguous contracts with rolled-up holiday pay and therefore taking no time off and therefore becoming a H&S hazard both to themself and colleagues. I think their logic is indisputable (a number of respondents to this thread for example seem to be confirming that there is a an attitude that would rather take the money than the break) ....

Is the issue freedom of choice? I guess to a certain extent 'Yes'. If it were possible to have rolled-up holiday pay and for individuals to demonstrate they were rested and didn't present a potential H&S risk i.e that they had taken unpaid time off between contracts, then rolled-up holiday pay might be workable. But unless there was some kind of 'proof of evidence' e.g a human tachiometer, I don't see how any employer could cover themself for the potential consequences if a H&S problem arose. So in reality the answer has to be 'NO'....its just one of those 'burdensome' rules folk have to follow for the general greater good of society at large.

[Dinosaur]

Surely the traditional 'rest time' pursuits of archaeologists, like spending hours on a train getting to somewhere to get absolutely s**t-faced (for many with the opportunity to get hideously injured in a battle re-enactment or whatever en route), then spend hours getting back with a hangover, are more harmful than just working instead? And I haven't noticed most of my recent workforces bothering to get anything like 8 hours sleep either....

Personally I find being on site far more relaxing than most of the things I do (sunday night and I'm absolutely knackered from the weekend again) - maybe that's why 'hobby' archaeologists like it?

[kevin wooldridge]

Surely the traditional 'rest time' pursuits of archaeologists, like spending hours on a train getting to somewhere to get absolutely s**t-faced (for many with the opportunity to get hideously injured in a battle re-enactment or whatever en route), then spend hours getting back with a hangover, are more harmful than just working instead? And I haven't noticed most of my recent workforces bothering to get anything like 8 hours sleep either....

I think we visited here a couple of years back when there was a long running thread as to whether employers should be able to test whether over-indulgance in your 'free-time' inhibited your ability to work ... still never mind. The current government has pledged to do away with 'burdensome' H&S legislation....