Hi All, 

I would appreciate your assistance on the following query:

Employee made a flexible working request. Her old arrangement was 24 hours a week (x8 hour days over x3 days per week) which has now been amended to 24 hours over 4 days (x6 hour days) from the 1st September. 

The employee has raised an issue regarding her amended annual leave allowance which is calculated based on days worked as opposed to hours. 

It has been calculated as follows (full time employees allowance this year including bank holidays is 34 days):

 Jan – Aug (8 months) worked 3 days P/W  34/5x3 x 8 months – 1.7 days holiday accrued p/m – 13.5 days

Sept – Dec (4 months) working 4 days P/W  34/5x4 x 4 months – 2.26 days holiday accrued p/m – 9 days - total for this year - 22.5 days

The employee has taken 7 days holiday between Jan - Aug, leaving 6.5 days that has been accrued but not used up until the flexible working request was granted and actioned from 1st September. The issue is that the employee believes those 6.5 days should be paid at her previous daily rate based on 8 hours per day (she is salaried) as opposed to the new daily rate based on 6 hours per day which is what our Operations/Payroll Manager (who is also her Line Manager) has told her. 

In which case, it would appear she then loses just over 12 hours pay as this amendment wasn't made clear to her when she requested the amendment in her working pattern (only x2 weeks before she wanted it amended). Therefore, had she been given the option, she says she could have taken those 6.5 days at 8 hours per day where as now, those 6.5 days will be paid at a daily rate of 6 hours per day. The Operations/Payroll Managers argument is that the holiday is worked out based on days and not hours and that she has been given the correct amount of days, plus had the employee taken the holiday earlier in the year, it wouldn't have been a problem - 'you win some, you lose some'. The employee has created a real issue about this and has acted unprofessionally in a couple of instances which has not helped her case. 

However, despite that, something about this doesn't sit right with me. Do the calculations above and the way it's been calculated/managed look correct? My concern is, where as previously, those 6.5 days that she accrued would have enabled her to have just over 2 weeks off, now they have been 'devalued' as this would only be around 1.5 weeks off, plus at the new daily rate. Should the days she has already accrued but not used (6.5 days) be recalculated across a 4 day week now that that is her new arrangement?

Appreciate your thoughts. 

Many thanks