Where Does She Stand?

[JonRB]

don4l said:

I don't believe that you can do that with part time staff nowadays. AFAIK, everybody is entitled to 4 weeks + bank holidays.

I think it depends on the number of contracted hours. The rules for part-time staff are slightly different for full-time, although I'm happy to be corrected.

[Burrito]

JonRB said:

I think it depends on the number of contracted hours. The rules for part-time staff are slightly different for full-time, although I'm happy to be corrected.

Possibly for casual staff but as far as I know, PTimers are entitled to the same statutory rights as any other employee.

[Odie]

paperboys are entitled to holiday pay so i assume everyone else is

[NoNeed]

Jasandjules said:

GC8 said:

There for four months, sorry.

OK, she is entitled to a contract of employment (written) after two months. Has she asked for one?

Of course, fundamentally, is she willing to do anything about these issues? At four months she can be terminated without reason! The ERA doesn't kick in until she's had 12 months employment (unless she was a temp with them previously for eight months of course)..

My understanding is that asking for a statatuary right (pay slip, minimum wage, holiday pay or a break after 6 hours and maybe other things) gives immediate protection so lenght of employment doesn't matter so at four months she would still be entitled to a tribunal.

[JonRB]

Burrito said:

Possibly for casual staff but as far as I know, PTimers are entitled to the same statutory rights as any other employee.

Ah. Probably pivotal on whether casual or set hours I guess. The people my ex employed were other mums and it was on a casual and ad hoc basis (ie. no set hours). So for that the idea of holiday doesn't really make sense so they agreed a higher hourly rate to compensate.

I think you're right though - if a member of part-time staff works Monday and Wednesday and wants a Wednesday off then that would be holiday.

[Flibble]

Some useful links:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/T...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/W...

In particular:

Directgov said:

You are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave - 28 days for someone working five days a week (capped at a statutory maximum of 28 days for all working patterns)

Directgov said:

As an adult worker (over 18), you will normally have the right to a 20 minute rest break if you are expected to work more than six hours at a stretch.

As such no breaks is unlawful. No paid holiday is also unlawful.
Not paying overtime is lawful, however she should not exceed the 48-hour working week regulations (unless opted out).

As for the part time thing - part timers get the same holiday entitlement pro-rated for their hours.

Also your employer can only elect to pay you in lieu of holiday for holiday in excess of the statutory minimum.

[NoNeed]

Flibble said:

As such no breaks is unlawful. No paid holiday is also unlawful.
Not paying overtime is lawful, however she should not exceed the 48-hour working week regulations (unless opted out).

As for the part time thing - part timers get the same holiday entitlement pro-rated for their hours.

Also your employer can only elect to pay you in lieu of holiday for holiday in excess of the statutory minimum.

I thought the minimum wage meant you are entitled to x amount for each hour, so unpaid overtime would be unlawful. Maybe my interpretation though.

[GC8]

I believe that the poster meant that an increased hourly rate for overtime is not compulsary (not that it neednt be paid at all).

[Cyberprog]

JonRB said:

Ah. Probably pivotal on whether casual or set hours I guess. The people my ex employed were other mums and it was on a casual and ad hoc basis (ie. no set hours). So for that the idea of holiday doesn't really make sense so they agreed a higher hourly rate to compensate.

I think you're right though - if a member of part-time staff works Monday and Wednesday and wants a Wednesday off then that would be holiday.

Nope, not at all. You just acrue holiday on an ad-hoc basis at 12.07% of your hours (though 12.1% works slightly better as it accounts for leap years). Casual or ad-hoc it doesn't matter, you're employed and the employer is responsible for ensuring they comply with the legislation, PAYE etc.

[JonRB]

Cyberprog said:

Nope, not at all. You just acrue holiday on an ad-hoc basis at 12.07% of your hours (though 12.1% works slightly better as it accounts for leap years). Casual or ad-hoc it doesn't matter, you're employed and the employer is responsible for ensuring they comply with the legislation, PAYE etc.

So, wait, if you have an arrangement with someone on an ad-hoc basis to give them as many hours as you have the need / budget for, and they're happy to do as many hours as you have the need / budget for, how exactly does holiday work there?

"I have about 5 hours work for you next week, any day that is convenient for you"
"Oh! I can do Tuesday. But I'd like that as holiday please"
"WTF?"

[Burrito]

JonRB said:

Cyberprog said:

Nope, not at all. You just acrue holiday on an ad-hoc basis at 12.07% of your hours (though 12.1% works slightly better as it accounts for leap years). Casual or ad-hoc it doesn't matter, you're employed and the employer is responsible for ensuring they comply with the legislation, PAYE etc.

So, wait, if you have an arrangement with someone on an ad-hoc basis to give them as many hours as you have the need / budget for, and they're happy to do as many hours as you have the need / budget for, how exactly does holiday work there?

"I have about 5 hours work for you next week, any day that is convenient for you"
"Oh! I can do Tuesday. But I'd like that as holiday please"
"WTF?"

In that situation you could treat them as self employed. There's various criteria that you need to adhere to, but basically, no set hours and can complete when available covers a large proportion of it. (There's more to it though!)
I guess if they're employed on a zero contract basis they would still accrue holiday and should be paid based on (IIRC) the last 40 weeks average. I'd need to check that though. I'm not in HR, thank god

[Flibble]

NoNeed said:

I thought the minimum wage meant you are entitled to x amount for each hour, so unpaid overtime would be unlawful. Maybe my interpretation though.

It depends if you're salaried or not. Also, even if you're not paid overtime, if your hourly rate is high enough you'd be above the minimum wage and not entitled to more money. E.g. if you're paid £10/hour for 40 hours but work 60, your effective hourly wage is £6.67, which is above the minimum wage, so you're not entitled to be paid extra.

[NoNeed]

Flibble said:

NoNeed said:

I thought the minimum wage meant you are entitled to x amount for each hour, so unpaid overtime would be unlawful. Maybe my interpretation though.

It depends if you're salaried or not. Also, even if you're not paid overtime, if your hourly rate is high enough you'd be above the minimum wage and not entitled to more money. E.g. if you're paid £10/hour for 40 hours but work 60, your effective hourly wage is £6.67, which is above the minimum wage, so you're not entitled to be paid extra.

I hadn't considered that. Thanks.

[mph1977]

NoNeed said:

I thought the minimum wage meant you are entitled to x amount for each hour, so unpaid overtime would be unlawful. Maybe my interpretation though.

1. depends on your contract

2, if at or near minimum wage and excess hours are required this can attract the attention of the relevant people


holiday pay as an adjustment to pay packets occurs in 2 scenarios

1. casual staff

2. staff where there are variable rates of allowances which change in terms of hours worked - but a re a routine part of the pay packet...