Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Boris...


  • Total voters
    24
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not just big corporations. A friend of mine's kids climbed a tree in the park the other day; the local council had sprayed the trees with pesticide, and both kids came up in a rash all over their arms and legs.

The council pump out loads of chemicals dude......but let's be honest only a few would have any idea that the stuff they are told to use is detrimental to your health
 
I'm not getting it mate, what is the court suggesting? Tell you why I'm confused is because they are talking in weeks, rather than hours and days, so I'd need a bit more clarity on the story.
basically people in their position will get full annual leave entitlement instead of a pro rata figure due to the way the law was written .
 
basically people in their position will get full annual leave entitlement instead of a pro rata figure due to the way the law was written .

Not sure what you mean by that, I thought everyone got full annual leave, but it depends on the calculation which is the bit I'm not getting?
 
If a person works 40 hours a week then they need 40 hours pay to have the week off

If a person works 14 hours a week then they need 14 hours pay to have the week off

So where is the problem or what is being done in that newspaper scenario?
 
I'm not getting it mate, what is the court suggesting? Tell you why I'm confused is because they are talking in weeks, rather than hours and days, so I'd need a bit more clarity on the story.

The guardian article wasn't that clear. I went to a different site. maybe not so bollocks after all.

Essentially, the case with this woman is that she had slightly less hours that a teacher (think she did music classes or something) and was only working 32 weeks of the year in her contract. As a result they pro rata'd her holidays (suggestion is that she is more part time than full time teacher). Basically this mandate is to say even though she is working part time, she is still full time employed rather than having hours per week, shes got weeks per year so is entitled to the full minimum holidays that each employee gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
Not sure what you mean by that, I thought everyone got full annual leave, but it depends on the calculation which is the bit I'm not getting?
no part time workers traditionally get a pro rata rate so if they did 20 hrs per week when the company norm was 40 hrs they would get 50% of the full annual leave entitlement but these cases are in effect to be treated as FT due to the way the legislation was written .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
no part time workers traditionally get a pro rata rate so if they did 20 hrs per week when the company norm was 40 hrs they would get 50% of the full annual leave entitlement but these cases are in effect to be treated as FT due to the way the legislation was written .

Surely if someone only works 20 hours a week, they only need 20 hours holiday to take a week off and be paid their usual going rate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman
Status
Not open for further replies.