I think its just for paid overtime, which would be recorded.
Overtime counting towards holidays
- Thread starter Neodite
- Start date
I think its just for paid overtime, which would be recorded.
The company is already recognising an extra cost by paying an extra overtime rate. The ruling just means a recalculation - reduce the overtime "bonus", but increase holiday pay. Or structure the overtime rate to reflect the extra holiday being paid as it is accrued (i.e. change nothing, but state that the extra one-third includes the appropriate holiday pay)
The fair and easy thigh to do, is enforce going forward with no back pay.
No chance, most pay/tax related issues are void after 6 years. And would probably be far less than that.
We had something similar a few years ago, with night shift allowance for AL.
They didn't work it out, everyone just girl a lump sum, and we now get an extra payment for every AL. Regardless if we were meant to be on nights or not. As far as I know if you had left then tough luck.
So it may not be hard to work out or do anyway.
This is why I generally take AL on weeks I know I will have minimum OT and higher grade duties. Otherwise lose to much money.
I worked there from Dec 2006 through to Oct 2009.
I hope it backdates that far!
No chance, most pay/tax related issues are void after 6 years. And would probably be far less than that.
We had something similar a few years ago, with night shift allowance for AL.
They didn't work it out, everyone just girl a lump sum, and we now get an extra payment for every AL. Regardless if we were meant to be on nights or not. As far as I know if you had left then tough luck.
So it may not be hard to work out or do anyway.
This is why I generally take AL on weeks I know I will have minimum OT and higher grade duties. Otherwise lose to much money.
Last edited:
It won't cover you, your not paid an additional amount for working OT
In my world people work a 39hour week and then get overtime paid at time and a half for any additional, sometimes 8 hours, sometimes 2, other times none. But when they go on holiday they will only get paid 39 hours money for a week off. New ruling proposes to some how make it so a week away some how equals what they might have got in overtime for the same period.
Agreed. Back dating what will effectively be a new rule for us all will cost businesses millions and will kill some dead. The thought of going back as far as 1998 to correct this is a complete nightmare.
Of course it's fair. No one expects to get paid OT onto your basics.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
Is it a new rule? Or a reiteration of an existing one that employers have been 'misinterpreting'? (genuine question).
If the former, I agree, backdating seems a little underhanded.
However, if the latter, and companies have been making profit at the personal expense of their workforce there is an element of culpability there that needs to be addressed.
Glaucus said:
No, It doesn't effect them as they already have a ruling for Holiday pay.
For the first year of 'employment' on a zero hours contract they accrue holiday pay as a % (12.07% is the full time worker accrual) of actual hours worked.
After the first year, they don't have to accrue the holiday entitlement before taking it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
I see. Well then some kind of compensation is required, but I would certainly like to see a back door for those who do not wish to take advantage of it and also the possibility for a mutual agreement between employees and employers.
In my case, if the rulling were that back dating was required I would be due a sizeable payment. As much as I do not like to see the little people abused, I can also see that I am not alone in my situation and in my company there will be quite a few others in the same boat. In paying those people off, others may have to be made redundant. Could I sleep at night knowing that the money that just hit my account has cost someone their job? I'm not sure.
I think a reasonable approach would be to limit the back dating to, say, 5 years and only if the individual is still employed by thae same company they were 5 years ago. Otherwise it will just be a time consuming and very costly process. I accept under those terms there will be winners and losers, but the main point is there would be more winners than losers overall.
As mentioned there's no impact in this scenario as any holiday will be based on pay or salary for a 40-hour week.
What is possible is that companies simply remove overtime for this type of contract where overtime isn't critical and find other ways to entice employee's to work extra hours (additional day off in lieu etc.) if required. So essentially meaning similar to now that you're realistically working hours for free to get the work done. One of the responses from the CBI suggests that as a response.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,785
- Location
- Falling...
I'd rather take TOIL than being paid. But I don't get paid for overtime anyway, but I manage my own time anyway and I'm quite happy to put the hours in if I need to, but I get enough benefits from work that it doesn't bother me.
Thinking more about it, I guess it depends on why the overtime is worked.
Like here, we get 22 days holiday, and have to cover others. We work 4 on 4 off as a pair, and the pair that work the 4 that we have off, if they book those as holiday, I do 2 days overtime and he will do 2 days (6 12 hour shifts each)
So we cover 22 days overtime a year, so not really getting any holiday.
Now if the company employed somone to cover holidays they would be working 1056 hours a year or 88 days. So that is 11 days holiday.
So in this situation the company is saving 11 days worth of holiday pay a year. and making people work 72hours (6 12 hour shifts) Is that right? Probably not.
Oh and apparently they are limiting the back dating to 3 months.
Like here, we get 22 days holiday, and have to cover others. We work 4 on 4 off as a pair, and the pair that work the 4 that we have off, if they book those as holiday, I do 2 days overtime and he will do 2 days (6 12 hour shifts each)
So we cover 22 days overtime a year, so not really getting any holiday.
Now if the company employed somone to cover holidays they would be working 1056 hours a year or 88 days. So that is 11 days holiday.
So in this situation the company is saving 11 days worth of holiday pay a year. and making people work 72hours (6 12 hour shifts) Is that right? Probably not.
Oh and apparently they are limiting the back dating to 3 months.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
I think it is horses for courses. If you are fortunate enough to take TOIL rather than receive money, that is great.
I think the wider working population, though, are not in that position and taking holiday time hurts them financially. I know it does with me.
It just has to be limited. We aren't even supposed to keep records past 6 around years so how is a business supposed to do it?
Also agree that it should be limited to people who are still in your employment. The hours and complexity of putting somebody on the system to do one payment are enormous. It will turn into a PPI type nightmare for small businesses.
Also agree that it should be limited to people who are still in your employment. The hours and complexity of putting somebody on the system to do one payment are enormous. It will turn into a PPI type nightmare for small businesses.