Overtime counting towards holidays

Neodite · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:45

I'm surprised not to see a thread on this already. (Or maybe my search skills suck)

Here is the link to the outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896810

Now this is only so far, as it will most certainly to an appeal.

I'm not sure what I think really, on one hand we cover holidays here, so I get 22 days holiday and we are expected to cover 22 days overtime, else they won’t get that holiday and they won’t cover for us etc.

So for me it will mean an extra holiday or so, but also an extra overtime.

And also if companies are relying on overtime instead of getting enough workers to cover the work, they have been saving money by working people harder/longer.

But also if companies are made to backdate this for x amount of years it will probably crush smaller companies.

RedvGreen · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:48

I work around 30-90hrs extra per month of OT (voluntary, but virtually expected). What difference will this actually mean?

Will we get a lump sum if it goes through, or what?
Currently we get 1x salary too.

Judgeneo · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:50

As I read this, I think the ruling only effects paid overtime? So the majority of people who do unpaid overtime like me are unaffected.

I'm not sure that its a wise ruling.

Neodite · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:55

RedvGreen said:
I work around 30-90hrs extra per month of OT (voluntary, but virtually expected). What difference will this actually mean?

Will we get a lump sum if it goes through, or what?
Currently we get 1x salary too.

Dont think anyone is sure on a backdate yet. But yes you will get a lump sum if it is.

So how much overtime you have done, you workout how many holidays that would give you (1 and a half days a month or somthing?) and then you will get payed that amount for how much the holidays add up to.

That is how I read it anyway.

It also means if it goes threw you will get more holiday if you do enough overtime.

I might be wrong tho as I only just came across it.

scorza · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:56

Neodite said:
But also if companies are made to backdate this for x amount of years it will probably crush smaller companies.

Not only that, it makes it less likely that overtime will be offered to staff in future.

I've been called all sorts of things on this forum - a commie, a marxist, a racist and a nazi but I just think we should try to find a happy medium between rights for businesses and rights for employees. I think both parties will ultimately lose out under this ruling, so hope the appeal is successful.

RedvGreen · 4 Nov 2014 at 11:58

scorza said:
Not only that, it makes it less likely that overtime will be offered to staff in future.

I've been called all sorts of things on this forum - a commie, a marxist, a racist and a nazi but I just think we should try to find a happy medium between rights for businesses and rights for employees. I think both parties will ultimately lose out under this ruling, so hope the appeal is successful.

You say that both will lose out, but it will mean more work carried over each month, which means more staff needed. Less profits in the short term for owners with staff, but bigger workforces and more employment opportunities?

Freakbro · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:00

RedvGreen said:
I work around 30-90hrs extra per month of OT (voluntary, but virtually expected). What difference will this actually mean?

Will we get a lump sum if it goes through, or what?
Currently we get 1x salary too.

Basically, a lot of employers base your Holiday due on your contracted hours and don't take into account Overtime.

This new ruling will now mean you will be due 12.07% of the hours you work as overtime to go towards extra holiday :- so 50 hrs OT in a month would give you 6 hrs extra Holiday (accrue it and take it as so many days extra)

If it is backdated, then yes you could either get it as pay or so many days off.

BuffetSlayer · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:02

This appears to only emcompass holiday pay rate, not the amount of holidays a worker gets?

Freakbro · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:05

BuffetSlayer said:
This appears to only emcompass holiday pay rate, not the amount of holidays a worker gets?

That's what Holiday Pay means...getting paid while you are away from work on holiday.

It has been illegal for some time now to pay an employee in lieu of taking Holiday time off. (with certain exempt circumstances)

Edit : Oh, I see what you are meaning, sorry :- that the rate they are being paid while on holiday while be higher as it encompasses the worked OT. Yes, you are right, it's the same in the longrun overall, but it will probably be implemented that way.

cheesyboy · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:09

Ruling makes a lot of sense. If you are contracted for 10 hours, but expected to do 30 hours overtime is it fair that you get paid holiday at the 10-hour rate?

It's as simple as that really.

Freakbro said:
It has been illegal for some time now to pay an employee in lieu of taking Holiday time off. (with certain exempt circumstances)

Only insofar as the statutory minimum holiday. If you get more than minimum holiday, then the extra can be paid in lieu.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:15

I can see the issue where a company has employees work a consistent amount of overtime rather than up their contract hours in order to ovoid holiday pay. In response I can see companies, where possible, avoid offering overtime and implementing short term contracts for additional cover during busy periods.

Back dating it seems unlikely, nor would it be feasible for many smaller firms.

wingman · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:16

I think I understand this, but let me try and explain my situation.

When I left school I worked for a Garden Center for 3 years with a contract of 6 hours a week (specifically it was for a Saturday). The problem is I never actually worked the Saturday and instead I worked Mon-Fri, with working hours of 9-5.

Essentially I only ever got like 4/5 days holiday over the year. I appealed this loads of times, asking for a full time contract but never got it.

Would this mean I would be able to claim back the holiday pay I never took/was entitled to? Or am I missing the point entirely?

Neodite · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:21

wingman said:
I think I understand this, but let me try and explain my situation.

When I left school I worked for a Garden Center for 3 years with a contract of 6 hours a week (specifically it was for a Saturday). The problem is I never actually worked the Saturday and instead I worked Mon-Fri, with working hours of 9-5.

Essentially I only ever got like 4/5 days holiday over the year. I appealed this loads of times, asking for a full time contract but never got it.

Would this mean I would be able to claim back the holiday pay I never took/was entitled to? Or am I missing the point entirely?

It depends if they decide to have it back dated. How long it is back dated if they do, and if you fall within that time.

Bear · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:22

cheesyboy said:
Ruling makes a lot of sense. If you are contracted for 10 hours, but expected to do 30 hours overtime is it fair that you get paid holiday at the 10-hour rate?

It's as simple as that really.

Yes it is fair, your contracted hours are fixed where as overtime isnt. The compensation for overtime is a higher pay rate, if there isnt a premium for overtime, then yes I would agree you should get paid holiday at the overtime rate.

peige · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:22

Its going to be a nightmare if this one doesn't get overturned. From an employers point of view the kind of calculations this could involve if we are expected to backdate it will be more than onerous. Searching records, calculating average overtime, dealing with people who left years ago and putting them back on the system for one run.
Changing the rules will be one thing but backdating it will be business killer for some.

Then ongoing what a ridiculous ruling, overtime is used to cope with the ebb and flow of pressure on work. Your just pushing employers to do away with it all together.

BuffetSlayer · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:23

Freakbro said:
That's what Holiday Pay means...getting paid while you are away from work on holiday.

It has been illegal for some time now to pay an employee in lieu of taking Holiday time off. (with certain exempt circumstances)

I see, thanks for the info.

Well, I do a fair amount of paid overtime. My holiday entitlement has remained the same.

Some months I have done 80+ hours OT.

Looking back through my old overtime sheets, I have calculated that I will return to work at some point in 2019

As much as I am in favour of a fat wad of cash coming my way I feel this is a flawed decision. I can understand the reasoning for those where OT vs contracted hours is being abused, but for many people I think the end result will make them worse off in the long run. Companies will wiggle around it and make the working terms and conditions even more oppresive.

I also feel that back dating the decision is dubious, and could see some smaller companies go into administration, the net result of which is more unemployment and more cost to the tax payer.

I don't really know much about it all. How does this decision effect 0 hour contracts?

Bunka · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:23

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced. For exampled, i'm contracted to do 40hrs per week but I regularly do 50-60hrs.

This isn't recorded anywhere, I don't get paid overtime for it, but I do it to get the job done well and it leads to promotions.

Is this ruling effectively trying to cover people who don't get paid overtime but should receive some form of recompense for the extra hours worked unpaid?

estebanrey · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:24

cheesyboy said:
Ruling makes a lot of sense. If you are contracted for 10 hours, but expected to do 30 hours overtime is it fair that you get paid holiday at the 10-hour rate?

It's as simple as that really.

It really isn't that simple though, not for my industry.

We run a service on Saturdays and no one specifically is contracted to do it. We require 8 people to do it which we take from our workforce of 70 by offering pay at time and a third and people volunteer to do it.

So whilst we have a requirement for overtime, the individual people who do it are doing it by choice and we can choose who gets it and they are rotated.

So how can any single one of them claim they should be getting this OT even when on holiday? It may likely that had they been in they would have but not guaranteed and they can't prove they would have gotten it.

cheesyboy · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:24

Bear said:
Yes it is fair, your contracted hours are fixed where as overtime isnt. The compensation for overtime is a higher pay rate.

No it isn't. Well, it is sometimes, but it's not an absolute: many people are on low-hours contracts and are expected to perform flexible overtime at normal hourly rate. We're talking (often) minimum wage jobs here - the most vulnerable among the workforce.

Xordium · 4 Nov 2014 at 12:25

Well if this comes into force I will be due a very sizeable lump sum. However, I don't think this is an entirely fair or sensible ruling. In fact I think it is a pretty stupid idea and will kill off plenty of small companies if they have to backdate pay. Yes, I may be shortchanging myself but I really can't get behind something that is wrong on many levels. I am guessing the unions that will drive this are the unions that have members that are already well paid and not the unions that have members who by comparison are underpaid.