Employment Law ques...
 

[Closed] Employment Law question

 Ewan
Posts: 4388
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Hi all....

My wife has just been informed that she'll get one less days holiday than last year due to a mistake / misinterpretation of the employee handbook. Basically the handbook states that you get 1 extra days leave for x years of service and 3 days for y years of service, it's not clear in the book whether it means that it's cumulative (i.e. 3 + 1) or absolute (1 day for x and 3 days for y). Last year it was interpreted by HR as being cumulative, but they've mentioned to her that it won't be this year.

Given this would appear to be a change in her benefits and thus contract is she within her rights to refuse to the change? Nothing's been written down in paper (other than the vague wording in the handbook) but I'd assume that if they were happy for a year for her to have 4 days leave then that counts as a non verbal contract?

Anyone care to comment?

Thanks in advance?


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:05 pm
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

I think she's in the right, they can't change this stuff on a whim.

*shines TJ spotlight into sky*


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:07 pm
Posts: 6886
Free Member
 

No idea but my first thought would be is my job safe and if not can i get another. As for the sack of 8 hours losing your job would be s**t.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:07 pm
 Ewan
Posts: 4388
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Her job is very safe...


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

You couls challenge them directly as to why they have changed the interpretation etc. They would need to defend this as acuurate. It really depends on the exact wording. Imagine they made a mistake and gave you extra holidays for a year that does not entitle you to them for ever.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Dunno to that one is the answer. She could register it as a greivance and fight it that way but I am not sure that a mistake that only happened once becomes "custom and practice" If she had had the extra day for more than one year I would say custom and practice applies.

What are other folk getting? is this a reinterpretation across the organisation or a mistake for one person?

Whats the union rep say?


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:20 pm
 hels
Posts: 971
Free Member
 

Or, how about be Glass Half Full people and be glad she got an extra days holiday last year ??


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:25 pm
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

Most employees prefer not to take it up the *** - from their employer at least.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:27 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It isn't a change in her benefits, they simply made a mistake last year and have confirmed what the correct allowance is this year.

I don't think they have done anything unlawful.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:32 pm
 Ewan
Posts: 4388
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Thanks chaps. I'll get her to find out what's happened to other people.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 1:33 pm
Posts: 16381
Free Member
 

Agree with hels. They aren't asking for last year's bonus day back so you are still ahead.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 2:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'd be inclined to argue it back - since they interpreted it that way last year, then arguably they have set a precedent and 'custom and practice' therefore kicks in (it would be interesting to see how they applied the rule to other people in the past!)

Might be worth trying to meet half way for an extra half day!


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Doing something wrong once isn't setting a precedent though really.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 2:16 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

depends how long they have been aware of it without taking action, how many people they did it for last year, and whether they've interpreted it that way in the past for other people (of course its possible she's the first person to have been there that long).


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 2:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

From the OP I had assumed it was the first time they had this issue to sort out, but if not, then possibly yes, there may be a precedent.


 
Posted : 20/09/2010 2:23 pm