Payment for holidays not taken

I know this is an old thread but what happens if the employee doesn't want to take their 20 days? Can they then be paid in lieu?
 
Purple said:
I know this is an old thread but what happens if the employee doesn't want to take their 20 days? Can they then be paid in lieu?
Click to expand...

No - it's illegal

Employer must insist that the employee takes their annual leave
 
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.
 
I know an individual who does get payment in lieu for full statutory annual leave. Employee and employer are ok with this and ignore the illegality. Unless one party is coerced, surely there is no problem apart from the illegality!
 
STEINER said:
Employee and employer are ok with this and ignore the illegality. Unless one party is coerced, surely there is no problem apart from the illegality!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Joe employs me as a van-driver and pays me for 52 weeks in the year, 4 of which are paid holidays. If I don't take my holidays, which Joe has already paid me for, why would that entitle me to 56 pay days? It's nuts!
 
mathepac said:
Joe employs me as a van-driver and pays me for 52 weeks in the year, 4 of which are paid holidays. If I don't take my holidays, which Joe has already paid me for, why would that entitle me to 56 pay days? It's nuts!
Click to expand...


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.
 
mathepac said:
Not really, read my post again. You are making a different point.
Click to expand...


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?
 
SparkRite said:
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?
Click to expand...

52 pay days as such, but 4 of them would be double.
 
mathepac said:
Joe employs me as a van-driver and pays me for 52 weeks in the year, 4 of which are paid holidays. If I don't take my holidays, which Joe has already paid me for, why would that entitle me to 56 pay days? It's nuts!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leo said:
52 pay days as such, but 4 of them would be double.
Click to expand...
Why would or should they be double? Joe already pays me for them via the 52 pay days per annum. If I choose to work rather than holiday, how does that create an additional 4 weeks pay liability for Joe?
 
mathepac said:
Why would or should they be double? Joe already pays me for them via the 52 pay days per annum. If I choose to work rather than holiday, how does that create an additional 4 weeks pay liability for Joe?
Click to expand...

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?
 
DB74 said:
Because you get paid twice ...
Click to expand...
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?
 
mathepac said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ahh come on now Mathepac, this begs the question, are you trolling or being deliberately obtuse??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register