office staff are easily replaceable so they get shafted.
Overtime counting towards holidays
- Thread starter Neodite
- Start date
office staff are easily replaceable so they get shafted.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
Not really because the ruling basically says that if your basic pay for a period is £X a week but you really earn £Y a week then a week of holiday should get paid at the £Y rate. Many employers were paying it at £X.
My wife actually got her (small) employer to change to this "new" method when rolled-up holiday pay was banned. So far as her and a number of her peers in other businesses are concerned the writing has been on the wall for some time now and this ruling should not be a surprise.
IMO, yes it is.
You haven't done that extra work that you get paid extra for, so either it is waiting for you after your holiday meaning you'll get paid twice for it, or someone else will have to be paid to do the work while you are away, meaning the company pays twice for the same work to be done once.
Although, of course, in those professions you get paid the same amount for the weeks you work and the weeks you holiday. All this ruling is doing is bringing them into line.
Personally, I'd like to see the UK remove the working time directive opt-out and ensure a 48-hour working week across the board. There is no benefit to companies to have their staff working such long hours*, and certainly no benefit to the employees.
* - the evidence is that productivity, accuracy, quality of work etc. decline so much due to overwork that it's actually self-defeating to work overlong hours. And that's before considerations about burn-out and staff-dissatisfaction leading to increased turn-over.
Should already be, as it'll be what is earned in the 3 months across the time period the bonus is paid in.
All it means is bonus payments will decrease or cease.
Not really seeing the distinction there....that is the definition of Holiday Pay, you pay someone who is away and not doing their work, so it either waits for them until they get back or someone else does it, so a company always pays twice anyway.
The distinction here is 'compulsory' overtime - which everyone seems to be having a slight difficulty in defining - but if you are expected to work X amount of hours / month over your contracted hours every month then it is reasonable to define that as your normal working week.
So why should you be penalised by getting less pay than you normally would when you go on holiday.
The point of my example, really, is that it's not uncommon for employers to contract for low hours, but for the working week to be much more as standard (aka: overtime). It's simply taking advantage of what was formerly a loophole that they could pay holiday at the part-time rate, despite expecting the employee to be working full-time.
not necessarily - when you're working you're perhaps accruing billable time for clients so bringing in revenue that can count towards your bonus or perhaps you're making sales and again generating commissions...
like 'extra' overtime - you can't get these when you're on holiday... only difference is you're paid monthly so it doesn't show up as easily. Supposing one of these professionals in a revenue generating role (with say commissions paid monthly) was able to take an entire month off in one go - that month would represent a drop in income relative to other months.
I can see the argument for workers who are contracted to do less than regular hours and end up working a full week on a regular basis. I don't see the argument for people earning additional income from working extra overtime paid at a higher rate etc... they're getting paid extra already for that.
I could see a potential solution being if they offered a TOIL/Annual Leave, based on backdated voluntary overtime. Then from now on, monetary based increase in salary.
That way it is still acknowledged, and whilst not remunerated as it should be, it will prevent the business from playing the hard-done-by victim card.
That way it is still acknowledged, and whilst not remunerated as it should be, it will prevent the business from playing the hard-done-by victim card.
Would this work on the flip side? Lets say for example that an employee works regular overtime. But also the same employee has had 10 days sickness over the year. Could you then deduct the 10 days from the overtime thus canceling any holidays owed due to overtime.
That depends on how frequent the bonus is. If it makes up part of your usual renumeration, i.e. a monthly bonus, then yes it counts, but it's something like a one off or infrequent bonus then it wouldn't.
The ruling should stand, this should prevent abuse from companies who hire on minimal contracts yet expect you to work 2-3 times your weekly hours. I imagine there's likely to be a minimal limit, so unless you're doing something like 10hours extra a month, otherwise i think the majority of people will fall under this.
I agree with what you are both saying regarding employers putting people on lower hour contracts than they expect them to work, fully knowing that they are exploiting those staff.
Leaving that to one side though as this affects many more people than just those on lower hour contracts, you also take into account those on 37 or 40 hour working weeks that opt to work overtime. This overtime may be regular, and would likely be paid at a higher rate, and would either be scheduled whilst person A was on leave and done by person B, or rescheduled to be done when person A returned from leave.
In this scenario the extra work needs to be funded at the overtime rate, should the person on leave be paid twice if the work is rescheduled for when they return? Should they be paid for not doing work that person B did do, and rightfully claimed overtime for?
There are so many problems with this, it's an absolute minefield. I would personally gain from what is being discussed, but I don't think a lot of it is right. You know the scenario when you agree, and are not forced to stay within the job you get. If you don't like it, move. If everyone insists on being contracted to the hours they are reasonably expected to work this problem goes away (and yes, I recognised whilst typing this last point that this is a pipe dream).
Same I would gain massively, as 10k a year is over time and higher grade duties. And has been at that level for almost 7 years.
But it just same so unfair on companies. Especially if its back dated.
However it seems a fair few companies where paying it correctly, which could screw all the other companies over. If they did it, why not everyone else.
Just to put into context what, in the eyes of the EU, constitutes your normal expected renumeration.
One of the cases Unison were awaiting an outcome from, before proceeding with mine, was a case put before the CJEU from some airline pilots.
These pilots received a basic wage, but they also received an "in the air" bonus where they get paid more for actually being airborne than they do when they are sitting on the tarmac. This is one of the reasons incidentally that flights are turned around so quickly now!
Anyway, they challenged the airline that they should receive the "in the air bonus" within their holiday pay with the European courts and won.
If that's not an example of how this law is all encompassing for anything which makes up a part of your regular take home pay them I don't know what is!
The EU see paid holidays as essential for employees to take time off and relax/recover from the vigorous working day. This law is there to ensure that you are not discouraged from taking this time off.
One of the cases Unison were awaiting an outcome from, before proceeding with mine, was a case put before the CJEU from some airline pilots.
These pilots received a basic wage, but they also received an "in the air" bonus where they get paid more for actually being airborne than they do when they are sitting on the tarmac. This is one of the reasons incidentally that flights are turned around so quickly now!
Anyway, they challenged the airline that they should receive the "in the air bonus" within their holiday pay with the European courts and won.
If that's not an example of how this law is all encompassing for anything which makes up a part of your regular take home pay them I don't know what is!
The EU see paid holidays as essential for employees to take time off and relax/recover from the vigorous working day. This law is there to ensure that you are not discouraged from taking this time off.
Last edited:
You make a good point here. Overtime is sometimes promoted in this sense by offering a higher rate of pay. If companies suddenly have to pay for holidays for the overtime covered as well, i imagine we'll start to see a lot of companies drop the overtime pay to normal rate.
This has always been the case, which is why it is considered normal. That is the way it is for many professionals in many professions. People accept that because they know that is the case before they even enter that industry.
And you do get benefits - you get to keep the job, the salary, bonuses, promotions. We are not talking about shelf stackers here but skilled professionals that command a high salary. It is a incorrect mindset to believe that you are working overtime for no money - you are doing a job that is paid a salary and that job typically takes more than 40 hours a week. If you rigidly work 40hours a week then there would be a less pay.