Employer refusing to pay holiday pay after resignation

I feel the 30 days thing in citizens advice may be overstated, the question for me is what would happen if this went before arbitration/a judge? What about the "reasonable person" aspect that judges do love to consider?

The employer has to have 30 days notice of forced annual leave, but the employee does not have 30 days service remaining, so what is reasonable?

The employer wishes the employee to use their annual leave during the notice period, is that reasonable?

The employee wants to work instead to "help out", but is that even relevant? The employer doesn't want them to help out and frankly thats their decision to make, after all they could put the employee on gardening leave if they so wished.

This is all just hypothetical of course but I don't think the "30 days notice" clause is a magic bullet here, not when it isn't physically possible for the company to give that 30 days notice. I certainly wouldn't like this case to get near a tribunal if I were the employee.

Take the annual leave, all of it, and sod them.

No matter WHAT HR in the public sector eventually say about paying back annual leave after you've left, finance will NOT pay that out, no matter what you do or who you threaten with solicitors.

Think you need to read the thread again.

As has been mentioned a few times, there was more than 30 days remaining when op’s partner was told AL had to be taken, so there was time for at least part of AL to be used up before end date. So, on reflection, did your post contribute anything?

The "30 days" (technically "one month", but that's a minor nitpick) is explicitly defined in statute, however:

" 20.—  (1)  The times at which annual leave is granted to an employee shall be determined by his or her employer having regard to work requirements and subject—...( b) to the employer having consulted the employee or the trade union (if any) of which he or she is a member, not later than 1 month before the day on which the annual leave or, as the case may be, the portion thereof concerned is due to commence..."

There is nothing in the law that says the employer may require an employee to use their leave with less than a month's notice if that is somehow deemed "reasonable"; the law is the law, and unless the employer and the employee mutually agree on using that annual leave with less notice, the employer has no recourse. If they cannot consult with the employee about using their leave at least a month in advance because the employee has given notice and won't be working there in a month, then they cannot require that employee to use their leave, and that is that. The employer is free to send the employee home on gardening leave for the duration of their notice period, if they don't want them working, but they'll still have to pay out that employee's annual leave balance in full at the end of their employment (in addition to paying them normally during their notice period).

I'm also not sure why you think a judge would accept an employer's argument of "But we don't want to pay out this employee's annual leave and also pay them for their notice period as required by law..." as a reasonable argument. Obviously many employers don't want to pay their employees (especially their departing employees!) any more than they absolutely have to; that's why the laws governing such things exist, to ensure that employees are treated fairly.

Found it (I think 🤔)

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/20/enacted/en/print#sec23