OK, 35 hours/week and 10 weeks/year...still nonsensical?, lets try 20 weeks/year?
Where do you draw your absurd line?
Annual Leave
- Thread starter Mirage
- Start date
Where do you draw your absurd line?
I'm puzzled here.
A new p/t tech has just started & gets 5.6 weeks hols.
I am on an old contract that gives us 1 extra week holiday pay after 5 years, then another week after 10 years.
So with the extra 2 weeks I have to work ( in hours or days however I want) I should be on
39 TTO + 2 weeks extra for long service + 2 weeks extra work + 5.6 weeks "normal" holiday = 48.6
I get paid 47 weeks.
A new p/t tech has just started & gets 5.6 weeks hols.
I am on an old contract that gives us 1 extra week holiday pay after 5 years, then another week after 10 years.
So with the extra 2 weeks I have to work ( in hours or days however I want) I should be on
39 TTO + 2 weeks extra for long service + 2 weeks extra work + 5.6 weeks "normal" holiday = 48.6
I get paid 47 weeks.
Nick Mitchener
COMMITTEE
Now I am in dispute with my employers over sick pay I have turned my attention to the fact that if you are sick for agreed holiday you can reschedule the holiday time. As I'm not paid all year round this would mean extra pay. However it requires my employer to work out which are the days I'm actually paid for holiday. i don't think they know.
Sounds like you're getting screwed with pro-rata of your 5.6 weeks
Work it out if they'd reduced that by your TTO and see if it comes closer to 47
Are they pro-rating your additional weeks for long service so that you don't actually get a full two weeks but (39+2)/52)*2...?
TTO is meh
I am on a term time + 2 weeks contract and like you have the maximum holidays and I get paid for 48.5 weeks, I should get in touch with your trade union and get it checked!
Let us know if you get any official clarification from your Union/HR etc
The response I have been given is:
You work 35 hours a week, over 5 days, 39 weeks a year = 0.822FTE
Holiday is calculated as 0.822 x 36 days = 29.59
(Just spotted a mistake in the response. In one paragraph I am told I am entitled to 6.2 weeks holiday which is 31 days but they have done the calculation on 36 days - another email needed!)
I have also been told I do not have entitlement to receive the same holiday as a full-time member of staff quoting the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, regulation 5(3) "In determining whether a part-time worker has been treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker the pro-rata principle shall be applied unless it is inappropriate". My contention is that it is inappropriate following the Supreme Court ruling.
Agreed
A supreme court ruling from 2022 overruling a Regulation from 2000 does indeed override whatever your HR is trying to say
They need to look into it, get clarification from the unions who all jumped on the court ruling if they need to but update their policies as this is months old now
Last edited:
I'm in the same situation. I have a certain number of days off designated as holiday, and a certain number as unpaid (although salary is averaged over the whole year) but I don't think anyone knows which days are which.
Haven't ever had to claim sick pay for the holidays, but I hate to think what arguments we'd have if I ever needed to, as I know the school would always claim that my sick day(s) were my unpaid days.
That's how it should be done, not all the stress of trying to prove that you're entitled to more than you've been given. Any chance of sharing the letter? Just the generics, nothing specific to you.
Thank you.
Update. HR have clarified that my entitlement is not pro-rated - their initial email was just clumsily worded. I am paid for 39+6.2 weeks. That is good.
However, FT staff get more holiday entitlement (36 days) that TTO staff (31 days). Their argument is, if my holiday entitlement was pro-rated as a proportion of the FT entitlement for weeks worked I would only get 29 days not 31 days, so the pro-rating is allowed because I get still get more than the statutory minimum.
I need to research whether full-week-part-year workers (TTO) and part-week-full-year workers are treated differently as HR say the ACAS document refers to staff who work all year round but maybe only 4 days a week not staff who work 5 days a week for 39 weeks.
However, FT staff get more holiday entitlement (36 days) that TTO staff (31 days). Their argument is, if my holiday entitlement was pro-rated as a proportion of the FT entitlement for weeks worked I would only get 29 days not 31 days, so the pro-rating is allowed because I get still get more than the statutory minimum.
I need to research whether full-week-part-year workers (TTO) and part-week-full-year workers are treated differently as HR say the ACAS document refers to staff who work all year round but maybe only 4 days a week not staff who work 5 days a week for 39 weeks.
Last edited:
The wording of the court ruling was pretty cut and dry over this bit unfortunately
They ruled that part time workers were entitled to the 5.6 weeks holiday same as full time workers regardless of hours, days and weeks worked
If you're already getting that a bit plus more, it wouldn't matter with regard to the ruling here that other colleagues are getting more than you and they're cutting you off by a percentage as long as you don't dip below the 5.6 because of it
You might be able to get your union to kick up a stink over parity across the school but it'd depend on the policy and what's written where re: contracts etc.
Update. HR have clarified that my entitlement is not pro-rated - their initial email was just clumsily worded. That is good.
However, FT staff get more holiday entitlement (36 days) that TTO staff (31 days). The argument is, if holiday entitlement for TTO staff was pro-rated as a proportion of the FT entitlement for weeks worked I would only get 29 days not 31 days so the pro-rating is allowed because I get still get more than the statutory minimum.
I need to research whether full-week-part-year workers and part-week-full-year workers are treated differently as HR say the ACAS document refers to staff who work all year round but maybe only 4 days a week not staff who work 5 days a week for 39 weeks.
However, FT staff get more holiday entitlement (36 days) that TTO staff (31 days). The argument is, if holiday entitlement for TTO staff was pro-rated as a proportion of the FT entitlement for weeks worked I would only get 29 days not 31 days so the pro-rating is allowed because I get still get more than the statutory minimum.
I need to research whether full-week-part-year workers and part-week-full-year workers are treated differently as HR say the ACAS document refers to staff who work all year round but maybe only 4 days a week not staff who work 5 days a week for 39 weeks.
Yes, that's pretty much what I thought.
you should ask for your TTO formula, there was a court case about TTO formulas as well.