Payment for holidays not taken
- Thread starter Margie
- Start date
That's my understanding but I can't see the specifics in the Working Time Act.
That only relates to the statutory amount of leave.
A
AgathaC
Guest
This is from Citizens Advice, I came across it while checking something for a colleague, in the context of getting paid for holidays where they are leaving a job.
It is illegal under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 for an employer to pay an allowance in lieu of the minimum statutory holiday entitlement of an employee unless the employment relationship is terminated.
It is illegal under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 for an employer to pay an allowance in lieu of the minimum statutory holiday entitlement of an employee unless the employment relationship is terminated.
I agree with you which maybe says more about Irish culture than anything else!
IMO the employer is the one taking a chance here as the employee could in theory take a case and claim that they wanted holidays but the employer refused and paid them instead.
The onus is on the employer to ensure that all employees take their annual leave each year so once they know they are taking a chance with it then it's on their own head
Incidentally I have heard a fair few anecdotal stories where incidences of fraud by employees etc only come to light when the perpetrator takes their annual leave and someone else does their job and then discrepancies are discovered so employers should bear that in mind too.
This happened in our workplace twice (good many years ago) One employee never took a lunch break even but was caught defrauding when on maternity leave and another senior guy (large defrauding) when his mother died suddenly. This happened in a large firm and was undeteced by auditors.
Not nuts at all.
Joe has paid you to actually work 48 weeks for him, and then during your holidays you decide to work for Joe and so he pays you for those four weeks as well. Its still actually only 52 "pay days" but you are paid double for four of them.
Easy peasy.
Not really, read my post again. You are making a different point.... Easy peasy.
I've read and re-read it again, but can't see anything new in it, where are you getting the entitlement to 56 pay days from ?
Did some one say that in another post, that I missed?
52 pay days as such, but 4 of them would be double.
Joe is legally obliged to pay you for the 4 weeks paid holidays. If you choose to work during this time, unless Joe pays double for that period, you are effectively working for free. All probably fine so long as both parties are happy with that arrangement. But Joe is taking a big risk, and you to a lesser extent in case there was something like a workplace accident where an insurance company could refuse to cover an incident for an employee who was supposed to be on vacation.
Because you get paid twice
Once for actually working those days
Once in lieu of not taking paid days off
So if an employee doesn't want to take his or her holidays they must be forced to do so.
What business is it of the state to interfere with someone's personal choice to work?
I can understand if the employer tries to stop the employee taking leave but if neither party wants the holiday then why force them?
What business is it of the state to interfere with someone's personal choice to work?
I can understand if the employer tries to stop the employee taking leave but if neither party wants the holiday then why force them?
Why? Based on what rule? The legislation says I must take the holidays. What legislation says I get paid twice if I don't? How does Joe get embroiled in paying me extra for not doing what is demanded of me i.e. ignoring the law?
Ahh come on now Mathepac, this begs the question, are you trolling or being deliberately obtuse??