Requiring staff to take holiday? - Feedback - Community Feedback

5 Requiring staff to take holiday?

Sean | 0 Posts

4 Apr, 2020 21:58

It has become apparent that we are not entitled to the furlough payment as the period for which we will be laid off is likely to be less than 3 weeks.

in respect of an employer requiring staff to take holidays -

Employers have the right to tell employees and workers when to take holiday.

An employer could, for example, shut for a week and tell everyone to use their holiday entitlement.

If the employer decides to do this, they must tell staff at least twice as many days before as the amount of days they need people to take.

For example, if they want to close for 5 days, they should tell everyone at least 10 days before.

In our particular case, we were sent home on Wednesday morning 25th March, on Friday 27th March we were advised to return to work on Wednesday 1st April. On Monday 30th March we were advised that we could either take holidays for the 25th and 26th (we don't work Fridays) or take unpaid leave. As we were given the option, does the same rule apply regarding the required notice as detailed above?

Moreover, on Tuesday 31st March, we were told the site was not yet ready for our return on the 1st April and to await further notice. Subsequently on Friday 3rd March, we were given the same option, take holidays or unpaid leave for the period 30th March to 2nd April. For those that do not have holidays available, unpaid leave is the only option and as such have lost 6 days of earnings. In this instance, am I right to assume that our only option is to claim the 'statutory guarantee payment' of £29/day.

Apologies for so much detail but in the absence of communication from the employer, we are keen to understand our rights asap.

P.S We still don't know when we are to return to work!

Thank you,

Sean.

552 views

Peter | 0 Posts

5 Apr, 2020 11:16

How can they lay you off for less than three weeks and not longer? If you are not essential workers then you should not be working other than from home, and if you are not needed to WFH for, say, two weeks, then why not three and put you on non-working furlough for that time? This sounds like someone trying to "lose" your A/L while keeping you working for their own commercial reasons.

To unpick this fully requires more detail and knowing what work is being done and from where. I would suggest a call to the CAB or a union, if someone effected is a member.
- Cancel
Ray | 0 Posts

5 Apr, 2020 12:15

Sean
If the people sent home are not on furlough, is there a lay-off clause in their contract allowing the employer to send them home, and if so what does it say?
Without the clause and without furlough, the only legal route to temporarily reduce the number of people at work would be to give notice that holiday must be taken (in the manner you describe).
- Cancel
Peter | 0 Posts

5 Apr, 2020 12:21

In reply to Ray:

But if holiday, not unpaid! :-)

I just can't see why anyone would want to have people sitting at home unpaid (even for a few days) when there is an entitlement to 80%of pay; or why work might not be required for several days ( i.e. short of the entitling three weeks), plus a couple of days unpaid, but then become essential "in the workplace". (Unless one is trying to "scrub out" a leave entitlement to maximise the number of days available for work while giving nothing in exchange.... not even as subsidised furlough). Great employer to work for!
- Cancel
Sean | 0 Posts

5 Apr, 2020 14:47

In reply to Peter:
Due to the nature of the product we manufacture, we are deemed critical. The initial closure was to imlpement deep cleaning and increased safety measures to allow for adequate social distancing. When it was not completed in the first few days, it ran into the next week and we've heard nothing since other than to say we will be notified when we are to return to work.
It simply has not been thought through and nobody has understood the requirements of furlough, let along the financial implications on the employees (agency workers on paye) by laying them off for a period shorter.
I will have a look at the T&C's for any mention of a lay-off clause or short-time working. I have already raised the issue with the union and the agency, but yet to receive a meaningful reply.
I wait in hope of this being resolved as soon as possible and given that this is a 'major' manufacturer, I'd hope it was sooner rather than later
Thank you both for your feedback.
- Cancel
Peter | 0 Posts

5 Apr, 2020 15:19

In reply to Sean:
That explains some of it, but it still seems parsimonious, to say the least, to in effect make employees lose leave and/or paid work to in effect subsidise a cleaning that was necessary for reasons nothing to do with them, agency workers or not. I hope you manage to get it sorted out to your satisfaction, because this seems a very poor way to be treated in the current circumstances.
- Cancel