Forced to take unpaid leave

Glass fused light

realitykeeper wrote: »

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.

The employees are not a charity either and they work for profit too.
And screwing over employees has nothing to do with a hotel owner choosing to rent their business premises to the State for migrants.


If the legal rights are too much of a burden to the employers they need to get out of the business of being a business and of being employers. It's not a pick and choose range of legistation. All legistation applies.

As the business is not doing as well as the employer hoped (and it would be working at capacity employing all the staff if it was) the employer has to make decisions about the number of employees the business needs.
These decisions must be taken with in the legal framework of contract law and employment law.
Eg as the employer has made statements that this is "work life balance" they have opened themselves to questions as to their prior conduct regarding the health and safety of the employees.

It looks as if the business is over-staffed by 1/12

If the employer wanted to retain the employees they could organise the short time work period so that employees could sign on and receive social welfare on days the employees were still in employment but the business could not afford to pay them. The employer is choosing not to comply with its legal obligations in regards to this.

The employer is in breach of the contract of employment agreed with the employee and is in the process on constructively dismissing the employee or may have by their actions made the employees redundant.

OP it's clear that you need a new employer and legal advice on the best route to take to resolve this.
If the employer has not put anything in writing about the time off the quickest (easiest) way may be to open a claim for unpaid wages for the week you were employed but did not get paid (the employer has no statutory basis to force unpaid leave for a work live balance).

Glass fused light

Glass fused light wrote: »

OP it's clear that you need a new employer and legal advice on the best route to take to resolve this.
If the employer has not put anything in writing about the time off the quickest (easiest) way may be to open a claim for unpaid wages for the week you were employed but did not get paid (the employer has no statutory basis to force unpaid leave for a work live balance).

Yeah, press the nuclear button. It's very easy to give advice when it's not your job on the line. The OP may enjoy the job or working with the colleagues he does work with.

Just because something's an option doesn't mean it should be taken.

Stories like this, when taken to the extreme, always remind of a particular situation in Limerick, where the employees (in a trade union) took industrial action for better pay. Again totally within their rights. These employees were already well paid in a VERY specialised industry. The company pleaded that they couldn't afford the pay increases. The trade union rep convinced the workers to continue with their pay claim. Totally within their rights. And the company folded. Over 100 very specialised jobs were lost. These workers were mostly manual and not a hope did they get similarly well paying jobs after. But, they had the right to do what they did.

But, they weren't all losers. The union rep, already having a fierce reputation, added to her reputation. And everybody acted within their rights (have I mentioned this already).

Strumms

I’d get the hell out of there.

The company should have been honest, outlined the challenges it was experiencing that led them to want to impose this situation but at the same time commit to signing forms that would help their employees get their entitlements.

By failing to do that they are showing a gross disregard for their employees and their families. Poor in the extreme.

This kind of unsat behavior will in my experience further manifest into other aspects of the company relations with employees.

wonski

Family run business cutting people off their wages is completely different from some scenarios posted above.

It is not unknown for restaurant manager not knowing how to peel potatoes etc.

While some are run professionally, some will rather send the waiter or chef away to save on wages rather than cutting down on costs of family member "running" the business.

The op asked simple question and the simple answer is no, they can't do it this way.

If you run a business you need to respect the law and your employees. Simple, if you can't talk to them like adults and impose unpaid "work life balance" instead of cutting down the hours and arranging a plan together with them I can't see any reason to have any sympathy.

Comparing it with some industrial action over pay rise is just silly.

The op might have bills to pay and rent/mortgage. I doubt esb or his balnk/landlord will give him one week free just because his employer is failing.

Annasopra

Ring WRC and ask for advice

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what-we-do/employment-rights-information/

wonski

wonski wrote: »

The op asked simple question and the simple answer is no, they can't do it this way.

Indeed, the OP asked a simple question, and you gave a simple response. And it's easy to give that advice when you don't have skin in the game.

There's a lot of shortism here, without thinking of the long term. Should the OP be looking for another job, possibly, but only he'll know the full facts.

It might be that the company needs time to restructure, and there's no point assuming the company is badly run. Companies get into difficulties all the time without it being their fault. A key customer getting into difficulty themselves being the classic. But, a company can recover.

Not shortism, but giving the company some latitude MAY be the answer. Can't say for sure.

But telling the OP to march in and demand their rights just MAY not be the right answer. The certainty of advice here is not justified.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, the OP asked a simple question, and you gave a simple response. And it's easy to give that advice when you don't have skin in the game.

There's a lot of shortism here, without thinking of the long term. Should the OP be looking for another job, possibly, but only he'll know the full facts.

It might be that the company needs time to restructure, and there's no point assuming the company is badly run. Companies get into difficulties all the time without it being their fault. A key customer getting into difficulty themselves being the classic. But, a company can recover.

Not shortism, but giving the company some latitude MAY be the answer. Can't say for sure.

But telling the OP to march in and demand their rights just MAY not be the right answer. The certainty of advice here is not justified.

We can't say for sure what the issues are. Yes if the OP goes in all bolshy and demands rights it could put his job at risk. But I reject your idea that people are not thinking long term

antix80 wrote: »

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.

Here is an example of someone thinking long term about the employee and the consequences of what is happening

wonski

It's badly run based on op.

Here is your one week unpaid leave so you can enjoy life more and get some rest?

Badly run. I guess one of the "managers" idea to save the business.

STB.

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.

And then again you can also spot those who sound like they came from an ISME like talk.

Honestly are you really endorsing trampling on employment rights. The company have sold unpaid leave as a "work life balance", whilst family employees show true leadership by not doing the same.

Employees are more engaged in having a steady income to pay their bills. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

The rules for protective notice etc are quite clear. This isnt it, if it were the case.

@OP. Questions need to be asked about the company health. Latest company accounts would be indicative.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think we need to hear from the OP before being able to give definite advice.

My opinion at the moment is that if it is as bad as some say then the OP might be better investing their energy in looking for a new job somewhere better rather than fighting a legal battle for what is possibly a sinking ship.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Here is an example of someone thinking long term about the employee and the consequences of what is happening

The maximum difference is approx one 12th of minimum i.e. statutory redundancy if the company needs to be wound up. The OP needs to weigh up if the possibility of increasing his chances of being made redundant and getting the maximum minimum redundancy if it comes to that... or having a long term job.

Besides, he can simply write to the company saying he's taking the unpaid leave under protest. No need to get lawyers or the WRC involved.

Is the OP happy otherwise? He doesn't say.

wonski wrote: »

Badly run. I guess one of the "managers" idea to save the business.

Yeah, you could be right. Trying to keep the company going and the employees in jobs could be a terrible idea. And :rolleyes: just in case you think I'm being literal. As I said, even well run companies can get into difficulty.

STB.

STB. wrote: »

And then again you can also spot those who sound like they came from an ISME like talk.

Honestly are you really endorsing trampling on employment rights. The company have sold unpaid leave as a "work life balance", whilst family employees show true leadership by not doing the same.

Employees are more engaged in having a steady income to pay their bills. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

The rules for protective notice etc are quite clear. This isnt it, if it were the case.

@OP. Questions need to be asked about the company health. Latest company accounts would be indicative.

I've been an employee and I've been senior management. Perspective is key. It's lacking in some here.

As I've mentioned above letting it be know there's financial difficulty in the company COULD be enough to tip it over.

The OP can get the last financial accounts filed if the company is limited (in fact, if he PMs me the company name I can get them for him free of charge.) But, they'll be 9 months out of date at best, and may not tell him anything as to the sudden change.

my3cents

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been an employee and I've been senior management. Perspective is key. It's lacking in some here.

As I've mentioned above letting it be know there's financial difficulty in the company COULD be enough to tip it over.

The OP can get up to date financial accounts if the company is limited (in fact, if he PMs me the company name I can get them for him free of charge.) But, they'll be 9 months out of date at best, and may not tell him anything as to the sudden change.

The reason there are employment laws is because of people with your perspective.

road_high

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.

Ah a family run thing. In my experience a total pain in the area to work for and never the same t&cs as big companies. Will often try pull illegal stunts like this.

wonski

I didn't say it is badly run because it got into difficulties.

Badly run comment was based on the way they handled it.

If the owners don't know their responsibilities and employment law then it is badly run.

Not sure what is your issue with me posting it is badly run when it really is based on op's statement of events???

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

The maximum difference is approx one 12th of minimum i.e. statutory redundancy if the company needs to be wound up. The OP needs to weigh up if the possibility of increasing his chances of being made redundant and getting the maximum minimum redundancy if it comes to that... or having a long term job.

Besides, he can simply write to the company saying he's taking the unpaid leave under protest. No need to get lawyers or the WRC involved.

Is the OP happy otherwise? He doesn't say.

Yeah, you could be right. Trying to keep the company going and the employees in jobs could be a terrible idea. And :rolleyes: just in case you think I'm being literal. As I said, even well run companies can get into difficulty.

I never suggested he or she should immdiately take a case to the WRC! There is absolutely no harm in him or her ringing the WRC to look for advice.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/contact_us/workplace_relations_enquiry/

Glass fused light

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, press the nuclear button. It's very easy to give advice when it's not your job on the line. 

I am old enough to have had my job on the line and loose it too. 
I have had to let people go and it's not a easy thing to do.

The one thing none of my employers ever did was treat me like an idiot.  We both understood that I provided work in exchange for money.

And there were times the minions (of which I was one) got paid a cash bonus and senior management did not. Their bonus was the benefit in the increase in the overall value of their business.

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP may enjoy the job or working with the colleagues he does work with. 

 The OP may enjoy the job or working with the colleagues he does work with but if the OP is not getting paid its a hobby with a social club attached.
That is not what the OP signed up for.

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because something's an option doesn't mean it should be taken. 
 
Stories like this, when taken to the extreme, always remind of a particular situation in Limerick, where the employees (in a trade union) took industrial action for better pay. Again totally within their rights. These employees were already well paid in a VERY specialised industry. The company pleaded that they couldn't afford the pay increases. The trade union rep convinced the workers to continue with their pay claim. Totally within their rights. And the company folded. Over 100 very specialised jobs were lost. These workers were mostly manual and not a hope did they get similarly well paying jobs after. But, they had the right to do what they did. 
 
But, they weren't all losers. The union rep, already having a fierce reputation, added to her reputation. And everybody acted within their rights (have I mentioned this already).

You may want to read the OP 

The OP is not looking for a pay rise.
The OP is looking to get paid their agreed wages nothing more nothing less.

Their employer is in the process of not paying the OP in accordance with the employment agreement.

If the business was in short term difficulty telling the employees would make more sense than not saying anything and not paying them. In the current market the better employees will be able to walk into new jobs without much difficulty. And the clever and/or experienced ones will have done the maths on loss of wage and statutory redundancy and the benefit of getting into the job market earlier rather than hanging around hoping the company wont go bust. The business has shown no respect nor loyalty to the OP in the way they are choosing to act.

Most business owners I know would not opt to do business with someone who choose not to pay their employees their wages, it raises a fundamental question about the honesty of the business and the reliability that the person will deliver on any contract.

The State has rules and support systems in place to help businesses retain staff by allowing the employees to sign on when the business has short term difficulty.

This business is actively preventing their employees from accessing these supports.

The employer has decided to dock the employees for no valid reason.  

If the employer wants to hide behind a fiction of it being for work life balance it's not nuclear to look for a new job its common sense.

The likely story in this case is that the employer is shorting the State too and not paying over vat, employment taxes etc. but not wanting to red flag on the system, if so it is only a matter of time before the business goes bust.
What else has the employer not paid? 
Is the OP insured when at work or has the employer decided that the employee insurance is not worth the money? 

Legal advice is also common sense as the specifics for the OP's will make a difference as to the best way to proceed.

And yes looking to recover the wages is not nuclear either, if the OP could afford to take a month off each year, I suspect that they would doing that already. 

The OP is loosing out in cash terms and also in the contributions of the weekly  PRSI stamp, 4/5 weeks per year has implications for the coverage the OP will be entitled to in future years

realitykeeper

Glass fused light wrote: »

The employees are not a charity either and they work for profit too.

If they don`t like it they should go sell their labour elsewhere. Honestly I don`t know what they are complaining about, the minimum wage ensures they get more than they are worth in many cases.

brightspark

nibtrix wrote: »

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.

A company cannot make you take one week every quarter as the act specifically includes a two week holiday unless of course the employee agrees with the arrangement.
I have worked for at least one company that insisted that I take two consecutive weeks (at my time of choice) because of this.

from the 1997 act.

"(3) The annual leave of an employee who works 8 or more months in a leave year shall, subject to the provisions of any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement, collective agreement or any agreement between the employee and his or her employer, include an unbroken period of 2 weeks."

BattleCorp

realitykeeper wrote: »

If they don`t like it they should go sell their labour elsewhere. Honestly I don`t know what they are complaining about, the minimum wage ensures they get more than they are worth in many cases.

Would you be happy with your employer illegally denying you 1/12th of your contracted wage because that is what is happening here?

wonski

realitykeeper wrote: »

If they don`t like it they should go sell their labour elsewhere. Honestly I don`t know what they are complaining about, the minimum wage ensures they get more than they are worth in many cases.

That is so disrespectful on many levels tbh.

Who are they and their labour?

More than they are worth?

Have some respect to hard working people!

brightspark

An earlier post of mine was edited because I wasn't clear enough



I wasn't suggesting the the OP sign on during holidays, but to sign on when their employer had no work available for them.

While it was a long time ago and the rules perhaps have changed, when my employer had no work (on a temporary basis) I was able to sign on for the couple of weeks involved at the time.
However on that occasion my employer did give me a note to give to the social welfare office.


It might be considered as Systematic Short Time?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._and_work.html


Some school secretaries also need to sign on during school holidays (that are not the secretaries' holidays) etc.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/education/irish-school-secretaries-protest-over-20133736

Glass fused light

brightspark wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting the the OP sign on during holidays, but to sign on when their employer had no work available for them.

....
However on that occasion my employer did give me a note to give to the social welfare office.

IMO it could qualify if arranged properly, by the employer.

the key thing with you was that your employer was engaging with the State and confirming that the employee (you) is not in receipt of wages for the time in question

As the OP would be flagged as full time employed, they are not looking for work nor are they available to work elsewhere so they would not be entitled any of the normal social welfare for unemployed people.

Short time etc is designed to help the employee remain employment in a business that has a reduced work available. It supports the business by keeping their labour available. But it needs the employer to engage and confirm work patterns etc as a basic anti fraud measure.