Overtime counting towards holidays

[Freefaller]

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.

I don't get TOIL or paid overtime. I'm just saying that if I had a choice to get paid or TOIL for my over time I'd take the time off - I find it priceless.

I appreciate that for some money is more of an incentive. The law should allow either rather than just one route, but I agree I think those that work more than contracted hours who are in an industry where overtime is valuable as is the pay that is associated with it they should get it.

The problem is you get a dichotomy From people on salaries and those that are hourly paid. Most people on salaries work more than their contracted hours, not because it is expected but because that's just the way it is yet usually this is not taken into consideration.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

I don't get TOIL or paid overtime. I'm just saying that if I had a choice to get paid or TOIL for my over time I'd take the time off - I find it priceless.

I appreciate that for some money is more of an incentive. The law should allow either rather than just one route, but I agree I think those that work more than contracted hours who are in an industry where overtime is valuable as is the pay that is associated with it they should get it.

The problem is you get a dichotomy From people on salaries and those that are hourly paid. Most people on salaries work more than their contracted hours, not because it is expected but because that's just the way it is yet usually this is not taken into consideration.

ah sorry, I quoted you before the ninja edit

Yeah, fair enough and I agree that there should be a choice. It can also create flexibility within the business too because if work is a bit dry on any given week people taking TOIL can ease the pressure to meet financial KPI's. IE not having people sitting around twiddling their thumbs if there is limited work.

I count myself lucky that I am on salary but also have a pretty fair overtime system. But taking time off does hurt me financially. I appreciate a lot of my overtime is voluntary but what is the other choice? Leave to earn a wage that equals my basic + OT? In an ideal world yes, but in todays work climate it is probably not advisable. First in, last out etc.

 

[mejinks]

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.

Same here. Ive nearly always had this kind of "gentlemans agreement" with employers and even as a contractor now, if I do overtime, I always take it off as unofficial TOIL at time and a half. Its great for me because it means early finishes and its great for my employer because its less paperwork and no extra cost.

Obviously I don't down tools in the middle of something important, its give and take.

The problem is that certain employers (Tesco, ASDA etc) have been taking the mick for years.

 

[D.P.]

Seems a pretty pointless rule to me.
Most salaried people have 40hr contracts and work 50-60hrs without any paid overtime or anything, and this rule does nothing to address that.

If their is anything backdated then many small companies will just collapse.
Even going forwards it won't necessarily benefit people. What will happen is companies will just issue new contracts with new hours as and when work loads changes. Each week you could be going in with a new contract.it is also legally possible to work 2 jobs at the same company so I can I againseopel get hired with a base job of x hours a week and then get offered short term contracts to make up the different hours.

In general it will reduce the efficiency of bussiness and they will be unlikely to hire new employers to make up the difference. More liekly they will re-evaluate their workforce and remove staff in some locations and expand in the areas that do need extra man hours.

 

[McPhee]

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.

I did that for about 2 years. 16 hour contract, working 39 hours almost every week. I got something like 100 hours a year as holiday. The problem there is, you basically can't take a week off if you're relying on that money. Want to go away for a week on holiday? Then be prepared to lose 23 hours of pay. It sucked.

If this does come in to force, it would go some way toward making up for such circumstances. It wouldn't fix the above issue, but any improvement is better than none.

 

[jon86]

My current company doesn't pay overtime (it is generous with good salaries, bonuses and promotions though), but I did a lot of overtime when I was in my previous company. I hope that we are allowed to request a backdate of up to six years. I don't have records going back that far but my previous company certainly will. Here's hoping for some more monies.

 

[Spook187]

Keerching for me then

Already drained the pot of PPI money claims, time to stock back up

 

[Freakbro]

Backdated claims have been set at 3 months

 

[jon86]

Backdated claims have been set at 3 months

I don't think that it's quite that simple.

So can I claim back pay I missed out on?

Unfortunately for workers, the bad news for employers was mitigated by the tribunal’s decision to limit back payments, so the ruling will not trigger an immediate payment of years of missed pay. The tribunal said that if there was a three month gap between deductions – holiday pay without overtime – it could only rule on the latest instance. It looks like that means employees can only make a claim if they have taken a holiday within the last three months. Richard Yeomans, employment partner at Addleshaw Goddard, said that the gap may “‘break the chain’ so that the employee cannot include the earlier holidays in a deduction from wages claim”.

However, he said employees could instead consider a breach of contract claim going back up to six years.
...

Let's wait to see if anyone sues for breach of contract and whether it's successful or not.

 

[estebanrey]

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)

You've misunderstood.

It's not about the overtime rate, but the system we have. We have 70 people in our workforce. 8 of them are needed to run the Saturday service but if no one volunteered we'd have to drop the service (people always do because they want the extra cash).

The crux is those 8 places aren't in any way assigned to certain employees and it is a different 8 people every week.

This ruling concerns individual's holidays and pay, so how does it affect us. No employee can say with any certainly that he would have worked one of those Saturdays that fall during their holidays. However over the course of a year it is almost guaranteed they would work a couple, so how does the employee prove that his holiday has stopped him earning overtime?

 

[Mr Jack]

I fully approve of this ruling. If a company is expecting someone to work 35 hour weeks for £350/week then they should be paying £350 a week during their holiday too. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

My only concern is the issue of backdating - back to 1998 according to the BBC - which seems like it may be an unreasonable burden on companies who legitimately thought they were playing according to the rules.

 

[Mr Jack]

This ruling concerns individual's holidays and pay, so how does it affect us. No employee can say with any certainly that he would have worked one of those Saturdays that fall during their holidays. However over the course of a year it is almost guaranteed they would work a couple, so how does the employee prove that his holiday has stopped him earning overtime?

They don't have to. What this ruling says is that someone works 10% extra overtime they're entitled to 10% higher holiday pay. All they have to do is know what their annual %age top up from overtime was.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Good, about time the loophole was closed.

Should hopefully lead to higher employment as well.

This ruling concerns individual's holidays and pay, so how does it affect us. No employee can say with any certainly that he would have worked one of those Saturdays that fall during their holidays. However over the course of a year it is almost guaranteed they would work a couple, so how does the employee prove that his holiday has stopped him earning overtime?

Current discussions between the Unions and BIS are talking about a 3 month rolling average, so if 10% of your hours consisted of overtime in the last three months prior to your holiday, you'd get an extra 10% holiday pay to compensate.

In a well run business, overtime worked should be minimal.

 

[el_dazza]

Hopefully this will stop megabucks retailers giving people a 9 hour contract but getting them to work 39 week in week out and getting nothing for it.

 

[estebanrey]

They don't have to. What this ruling says is that someone works 10% extra overtime they're entitled to 10% higher holiday pay. All they have to do is know what their annual %age top up from overtime was.

So the employee then just books his holidays around the times he knows it's unlikely he'll be offered the overtime and gets double bubble then?

I can see why this ruling has been made, to stop employers offering low hours then expecting full time hours so they can pay less in holidays but I don't see how it can apply to situations like ours where no one is being screwed over and nothing underhand is a foot.

 

[estebanrey]

Current discussions between the Unions and BIS are talking about a 3 month rolling average, so if 10% of your hours consisted of overtime in the last three months prior to your holiday, you'd get an extra 10% holiday pay to compensate.

But holiday entitlement is calculated annually, not 3 monthly.

So what happens if one of our employees works every Saturday for three months, gets a load more holiday entitlement added and then doesn;t work another for the rest of the year? Is it taken away again on the next three month review?

This whole thing sounds very complex and not well thought out for many types of situation.

 

[Mr Jack]

So what happens if one of our employees works every Saturday for three months, gets a load more holiday entitlement added and then doesn;t work another for the rest of the year? Is it taken away again on the next three month review?

Pay not entitlements.

 

[Destination]

Did they define in the ruling what 'regular overtime' was?
As it seems that if you do occasional overtime this won't be considered, but how did they define regular?

 

[rogue66700]

I work for one of the companies that was involved in this case, and me and my colleagues have always thought it was unfair the way our holiday pay was calculated.

We were contracted to 38 hours a week at £9 a week plus an hourly bonus at around £2, but worked a minimum of 50 hours a week Monday to Friday and around 65 with weekends. When our holiday pay was paid it was calculated on 38 hours without the £2 bonus.

Now I wouldnt expect to have my weekends calculated into my holiday pay, but don't think it's fair I don't get my bonus or the extra 12 hours calculated into it.

 

[dowie]

Hopefully this will stop megabucks retailers giving people a 9 hour contract but getting them to work 39 week in week out and getting nothing for it.

that is fair enough

however when people choose to work above a normal working week (rather than being expected to) or start including things like sales commission etc..etc.. then I don't necessarily see it as being fair.