Forced to take unpaid leave

makemineawine · 11-09-2019 10:59am #1

Can an employer force you to take unpaid leave? Have worked for the same company for a number of years. Recently they insist that you take one week off after every 12 weeks. This is unpaid and they say it is "work life balance". A fellow staff member asked for a letter for Social Welfare, but they refuse to supply it. I can't afford to be down a weeks pay. Are they entitled to do this?

antix80 · 11-09-2019 11:17am

Assuming you're permanent.. No, they can't do this. There are rules around cutting hours.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/contracts_of_employment/being_asked_to_reduce_your_hours_of_work.html

nibtrix · 11-09-2019 12:14pm

Sounds like someone has gotten the wrong idea about annual leave and unpaid leave (the company I mean). There are a lot of companies that like you to spread your annual leave across the year, taking one week per quarter, to avoid having everyone saving up their leave for long holidays at peak times.

While it is ok for a company to dictate when you take your annual leave (provided the give enough notice), as stated above they can't cut your hours by making you take unpaid leave.

antix80 · 11-09-2019 12:19pm

Yea, I don't know many companies that would require an employee to take 4 weeks paid leave AND 4 weeks unpaid.

It sounds like the company is introducing an Annual Leave policy. If someone didn't want to take Annual Leave according to the company's schedule, I guess the employer could allow the employee to take an extra week unpaid and they wouldn't be required to write a letter to social welfare.

Op, are you telling us the full story?

Dav010 · 11-09-2019 1:52pm

The obvious question I would be asking is whether there has been a downturn in business. If there has been and the company can’t afford to continue with a full time workforce, then refusal may lead to redundancies.

Op, how is the company doing?

TheShow · 11-09-2019 1:55pm

No is the short answer.
If you are part of a union , let the union rep know. if not, then you have to raise the issue yourself or a collectively with a group of employees, more power in numbers.

They have no legal standing to enforce you to take unpaid leave.

skallywag · 12-09-2019 6:02pm

Dav010 wrote: »

The obvious question I would be asking is whether there has been a downturn in business.

This is also the first thing that occurred to me, it sounds like the company may be desperate to save money.

In such cases though the employees are normally approached in advance and told what is going on and why.

makemineawine · 13-09-2019 2:26pm

To clarify - it is unpaid leave, separate to paid leave. It was not offered to the staff - it was imposed. You must take one unpaid week after every 12. Same rules don't apply to management (who all happen to be family). There is no union - the company won't allow it. Personally can't afford it but when we requested something in writing so we could sign on, the company refused saying that this time was as part of a "lifestyle" change. Not sure what we should do about the situation.

13-09-2019 2:34pm

In a family owned business what should you do:
Go speak to a lawyer or practically if they want you to take a 10% pay cut I would start looking for a new job.

Stheno · 13-09-2019 7:45pm

makemineawine wrote: »

To clarify - it is unpaid leave, separate to paid leave. It was not offered to the staff - it was imposed. You must take one unpaid week after every 12. Same rules don't apply to management (who all happen to be family). There is no union - the company won't allow it. Personally can't afford it but when we requested something in writing so we could sign on, the company refused saying that this time was as part of a "lifestyle" change. Not sure what we should do about the situation.

Do you so get paid holidays?

snowgal · 13-09-2019 8:21pm

makemineawine wrote: »

To clarify - it is unpaid leave, separate to paid leave. It was not offered to the staff - it was imposed. You must take one unpaid week after every 12. Same rules don't apply to management (who all happen to be family). There is no union - the company won't allow it. Personally can't afford it but when we requested something in writing so we could sign on, the company refused saying that this time was as part of a "lifestyle" change. Not sure what we should do about the situation.

Very odd and not very legal tbh.... as someone else said, go speak to someone in employment law...have you got this request in writing from the company or was it done verbally?

fritzelly · 13-09-2019 8:24pm

snowgal wrote: »

Very odd and not very legal tbh.... as someone else said, go speak to someone in employment law...have you got this request in writing from the company or was it done verbally?

Sounds like they don't want to put anything in writing

13-09-2019 8:25pm

What the company is doing may not be right, but the alternative for them if they have to could be redundancies, which would be within their right.

Company might be trying to hang in there and keep all the jobs.

snowgal · 13-09-2019 8:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What the company is doing may not be right, but the alternative for them if they have to could be redundancies, which would be within their right.

Company might be trying to hang in there and keep all the jobs.

Well that being the case they should state it tbh... trying to force employees to take unpaid leave just cos, is not acceptable

wonski · 13-09-2019 8:31pm

Not the op problem if the company is not doing well.

You cant just cut people off their income like that.

Dav010 · 13-09-2019 8:38pm

wonski wrote: »

Not the op problem if the company is not doing well.

You cant just cut people off their income like that.

Not that I wish to defend the way the ops employer has gone about it, but I would think it is a potentially big problem for the op if the company is not doing well. A busy company with a full order book does not require employees to take a week off every month, however, a struggling company might. They can cut off income completely by making people redundant.

The op needs to know what is going on and if the change in working days is due to lack of orders/work. If it is, then the company, though handling it badly, may be trying to avoid laying people off while they wait for business to pick up.

ashes2014 · 13-09-2019 8:46pm

They are definitely trying to cut costs and not being honest about it.

You do have a right to join a union regardless of whether or not the company recognises them. If nothing else, you will receive support & relevant advice.

wonski · 13-09-2019 8:47pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Not that I wish to defend the way the ops employer has gone about it, but I would think it is a potentially big problem for the op if the company is not doing well. A busy company with a full order book does not require employees to take a week off every month, however, a struggling company might. They can cut off income completely by making people redundant.

The op needs to know what is going on and if the change in working days is due to lack of orders/work. If it is, then the company, though handling it badly, may be trying to avoid laying people off while they wait for business to pick up.

Or the owner just prefers to have few hundreds extra in their pocket rather than honouring their contract with employee.

I don't know what business the op is in but if it is hospitality of any sort then that's what they do.

Blooming in the summer and the reality kicks in later.

13-09-2019 10:34pm

snowgal wrote: »

Well that being the case they should state it tbh... trying to force employees to take unpaid leave just cos, is not acceptable

Yeah, might be best to let the OP go.

listermint · 13-09-2019 10:38pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, might be best to let the OP go.

Probably best to be honest rather than spoofing about work life balance.

Lying helps no one. Or do you think lying works ?

Sinus pain · 13-09-2019 10:44pm

Why not give letter for sw then?

antix80 · 13-09-2019 10:49pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What the company is doing may not be right, but the alternative for them if they have to could be redundancies, which would be within their right.

And the op would be entitled to redundancy.. But cutting hours would reduce any eventual redundancy payout, or may be a form of constructive dismissal to avoid redundancy payments.

If op works under those terms he/she'll be considered to have accepted them.

snowgal · 14-09-2019 12:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, might be best to let the OP go.

Yea, not that simple. Hence them chancing their luck....

14-09-2019 6:32am

listermint wrote: »

Or do you think lying works ?

If only the real world was so black and white.

You can spot a mile off those that never had the sniff of being responsible for the well being of a company.

From the remove of an employee I understand what you're saying. Why can't they be honest with the employee, that makes sense right. Something like an employee wants a fair wage for fair work.

Now imagine an employer tells their staff they're facing financial difficulties and need to manage costs. A few things are likely to happen.

1. The best staff are ALWAYS the first to leave is a truism. And may not hang around.
2. When it gets out (and it always does) the company may lose nervous customers.
3. Competitors will smell blood, and target that company.

Any of the three above will greatly increase the chances of the OP losing their job.

Is the quality of life speel BS? Very likely. But being fully open may not be so clever either.

The Bishop Basher · 14-09-2019 6:39am

wonski wrote: »

Not the op problem if the company is not doing well.

I never understand this mentality.

It’s classic union think that eventually drives companies out of business.

The overall well-being of the company is very much the OP’s problem especially if they like it and want to continue working there.

mikemac2 · 14-09-2019 6:49am

Is this tourism/ hospitality?

I just think it might be as this wasn’t discussed until the summer was over

listermint · 14-09-2019 6:53am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If only the real world was so black and white.

You can spot a mile off those that never had the sniff of being responsible for the well being of a company.

From the remove of an employee I understand what you're saying. Why can't they be honest with the employee, that makes sense right. Something like an employee wants a fair wage for fair work.

Now imagine an employer tells their staff they're facing financial difficulties and need to manage costs. A few things are likely to happen.

1. The best staff are ALWAYS the first to leave is a truism. And may not hang around.
2. When it gets out (and it always does) the company may lose nervous customers.
3. Competitors will smell blood, and target that company.

Any of the three above will greatly increase the chances of the OP losing their job.

Is the quality of life speel BS? Very likely. But being fully open may not be so clever either.

You can spot from a mile off unscrupulous business owners who think they know better than everyone dreaming up ways to circumvent employment law. In the real world.

They need to ask themselves how they got in that place

14-09-2019 7:11am

listermint wrote: »

They need to ask themselves how they got in that place

I wouldn't know, but you can ask the OP, he may have plenty of time on his hands soon to discuss.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 14-09-2019 7:23am

It's obvious I think that the company does not have enough work on for the staff it has. No way would the employer have people take unpaid leave to save money if they could make more by having the staff work.

I would encourage the OP and other staff to have a think back over the last few months and see if they can identify warning signs that the company may be in trouble.

If the company is looking dodgy then maybe the best thing is to start looking around for another job. With regards redundancy you may only get the statutory if the company folds.

realitykeeper · 14-09-2019 7:31am

makemineawine wrote: »

To clarify - it is unpaid leave, separate to paid leave. It was not offered to the staff - it was imposed. You must take one unpaid week after every 12. Same rules don't apply to management (who all happen to be family). There is no union - the company won't allow it. Personally can't afford it but when we requested something in writing so we could sign on, the company refused saying that this time was as part of a "lifestyle" change. Not sure what we should do about the situation.

You could look for another job.

realitykeeper · 14-09-2019 7:39am

wonski wrote: »

Or the owner just prefers to have few hundreds extra in their pocket rather than honouring their contract with employee.

I don't know what business the op is in but if it is hospitality of any sort then that's what they do.

Blooming in the summer and the reality kicks in later.

A business has to make a profit, it is not a Charity. Certainly employees have legal rights but when such rights become a burden for employers, tough decisions need to be made. Perhaps the employer is not being completely honest but the alternative may be redundancy and another former hotel for migrants.

Forced to take unpaid leave

Comments