Can an employer refuse holidays for first 13 weeks?

[King Mustard]

My partner started working in a hotel this week. She works 50+ hours per week (not sure how many hours her contract states).

Anyway, her contract states:

"Upon commencement of employment, you will not be entitled to take any holidays for the first 13 weeks after which time you will be entitled to take one twelfth of your annual entitlement for each month of service to date."

Is this legal? Seems dodgy.

[leclerc]

Re: Can an employer refuse holidays for first 13 weeks?

My partner started working in a hotel this week. She works 50+ hours per week (not sure how many hours her contract states).

Anyway, her contract states:

"Upon commencement of employment, you will not be entitled to take any holidays for the first 13 weeks after which time you will be entitled to take one twelfth of your annual entitlement for each month of service to date."

Is this legal? Seems dodgy.

It's in the contract so if she did not agree with it then she should not have taken the job. I know that sounds harsh and I would wait until Eloise has had a look at the thread as this is probably her sphere but I do not see it as a problem. After 13 weeks she is entitled to 3 times her holiday divided by 12, ie if she has say 24 days off per years then she is entitled to 6 days off after that period is up.

[King Mustard]

Re: Can an employer refuse holidays for first 13 weeks?

It's in the contract so if she did not agree with it then she should not have taken the job. I know that sounds harsh and I would wait until Eloise has had a look at the thread as this is probably her sphere but I do not see it as a problem. After 13 weeks she is entitled to 3 times her holiday divided by 12, ie if she has say 24 days off per years then she is entitled to 6 days off after that period is up.

No, my point was just because something is in a contract, doesn't mean it can override the law. I posted this topic to make sure that isn't what was happening.

Just seems a bit unfair that she can't take any holiday days off, even though she works a minimum of 48 hours per week, for three full months

[leclerc]

Re: Can an employer refuse holidays for first 13 weeks?

No, my point was just because something is in a contract, doesn't mean it can override the law. I posted this topic to make sure that isn't what was happening.

Just seems a bit unfair that she can't take any holiday days off, even though she works a minimum of 48 hours per week, for three full months

As I have also said, please wait for Eloise who is much more knowledgeable than myself. I would simply say that on the face of it, I cannot see an issue with what is written in the contract.

[Eloise01]

Re: Can an employer refuse holidays for first 13 weeks?

The law provides every employee with the entitlement to 5.6 (28 days) weeks holiday per leave year. it does not, however, entitle anyone to take holidays when they wish to. So the employer is always permitted the power to refuse people the right to take holidays, provided they allow employees the opportunity to take their full legal entitlement. So yes, they can tell her she can't take any leave in the first three months, or at any other period (which will almost certainly, in her trade, include things like the Christmas period). What they cannot do is refuse to allow an employee to take only their accrued holiday - which is what you are describing. But as I told you in your last post - she requires two years employment to claim unfair dismissal and she has been in her current employment for a week!

Look, let's be blunt. It's a crap job. It's ten hour shifts, six days a week, probably at minimum wage. They will skirt the law whenever they can and break it whenever they can. There are certain sectors of employment and certain employers that will do so at the drop of a hat. The "hospitality sector" is one of them - which doesn't mean all employers in this sector are rubbish, but I'd start at assuming they are and wait to be proved wrong. But legal or not, you do not start splitting hairs with your employer one week into any job that you expect to last two weeks at - and she needs two years!

The best advice she could have is get another job. In this area of work she may struggle to find a better employer, but she probably won't do a lot worse. She was probably "scammed" on the training course already, and the fact that any employer associated with that course is suspect doesn't surprise me at all. Nobody needs to be paying for a course to teach you waitressing and legitimate courses do not "find you work" when you complete the course. This screams scam to me. I would like to be proven wrong - but I doubt I will be. Sorry, but that's the most likely explanation.