Pre-Wedding Jitters??...Confusion Surrounding the Royal Wedding

The bank-holiday season is nearly upon us! Are you prepared?

The recent announcement of the Royal Wedding on 29^th April has left many employers confused. Uncertainty surrounds whether employers have to grant employees this extra day off and if so, whether this leave is paid or unpaid. Equally, many employees may be confused or misguided as to whether they have an automatic right to take this additional day off.

Entitlement

Under the Working Time Regulations 1998 the statutory minimum holiday entitlement currently stands at 5.6 weeks a year. For most full time employees this equates to 20 days plus the standard 8 days annual public holidays. (The addition of the 29^th April as a bank holiday brings the total number of bank holidays in 2011 to 9 days.)

An employee’s contractual position however may be different. For example if the employment contract states an entitlement to 20 days’ paid leave per annum plus bank/public holidays then this year they would be entitled to 29 days’ paid leave. However, if the employment contract states that they are entitled to 28 days per annum including any bank/public holidays then an employee’s entitlement would not increase with the additional public holiday. Employees on this contract would still be able to take the day off however this would be taken from their annual entitlement.

Part-time employees

Issues are likely to occur where part-time employees have their holiday entitlement rounded up to allow for their pro-rate bank holiday entitlement. For example, part-time employees who work three days a week and get the pro-rata equivalent (16.8 days inclusive of their bank holiday entitlement) will have to use some of their rounded up entitlement to take the time off as there will be no increase in entitlement for the wedding.

Most full-time staff have arrangements whereby bank/public holidays are on top of their annual entitlement. This may lead to part-time staff feeling they are being treated less favourably and may decide to claim against the employer. To avoid this, employers should offer a pro-rata increase to part-time employees too.

To pay or not to pay?

Many employers will be happy to give staff the day off with pay irrespective of their contracts. There are some companies however that have already informed their employees that the 29^th April is just a normal working day and if they wish to have the day off they need to take it out of their annual entitlement. Be careful though: this should only happen if the contract of employment permits it.

How about those employees who do work on the day of the wedding, should they receive additional payment?

As with any bank holiday there is no statutory right to additional pay or time off in lieu so again the answer lies in the wording of their contract. If the contract states that bank holidays are in addition to their annual leave entitlement and an agreement is in place for pay increments when working bank holidays, you should apply this as normal.

Making your decision

When deciding whether to grant this additional holiday you need to weigh up your options and decide what’s best for you and your company. Offering the wedding day as an extra holiday is a gesture of goodwill and a positive move for employee engagement. Conversely, in such times of economic downturn and with each bank holiday costing the economy £6 billion, it is not a viable option for all businesses. Individual companies (especially smaller businesses or those just starting out) need to seriously assess whether or not they can afford this.

Planning & preparation

If you do decide to take this day as a public bank holiday, remember employees will need only to book the three days off (26th-28^th April) to have an 11-day break. It is highly likely that demand for time off over that period will be high so you need to ensure that you manage those requests effectively! Whatever you decide, ensure that you communicate your intentions to your employees; they may not know what their entitlements are.

The best advice for businesses and employers is to be prepared and to check the employee contracts thoroughly before addressing your employees!!

As ever, if you have any questions on this or any other HR issue contact The HR Experts at info@thehrexperts.co.uk

Staking a Claim

Whether or not you agree with Boris Johnson about Employment Tribunal's being barmy, you can have your say on their future by going to the BIS website.

With Tribunal claims rising, the UK coalition government is reviewing employment laws. Employers are often unclear about what they can and can’t do, with scare stories about Tribunal claims leaving them feeling backed into a corner. The Employer’s Charter helps clear up some common myths about the balance between business need and individuals’ rights.

Employer lobby groups have raised concerns that Tribunal claims are too onerous and costly, particularly for smaller organisations. As a result, ways to speed up the Tribunal process and attempts to reduce ‘weak or vexatious claims’ will be considered. Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that the change will help support business growth.

The emphasis on reform appears to be in favour of businesses, which has received support from some quarters. The key proposals include increasing the minimum service for an unfair dismissal claim from one to two years and encouraging conciliation rather than Tribunal. This is aimed at reducing the number of claims brought against employers, however fines may also be imposed for employers who are in breach of employment rights to encourage compliance. Brendan Barber, of the TUC, has hit back at the proposals, stating that “if firms treated their staff fairly, few would ever find themselves taken to court”.

A separate consultation is under way to consider the introduction of a fee to bring a claim, although it is unclear what that cost could be. This has been met with disapproval by law firms who believe it could ‘impede access to justice’. However, the rising cost of the Employment Tribunal is obviously a key concern for the government and this may also result in payment of expenses being removed.