Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: David <NUFFSNUFF@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:59:19 -0800 (PST)
On 23 Feb, 20:38, John Gruffydd <johngruffy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:59:25 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"
<tims_new_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In your example, you are not being required to take BHMs off as they are not
part of the normal working week.
The compay saying that you are, does not make it so.
Thank you Tim, and everyone else, who have kindly responded to my
original post. Summarising, I suppose the query is best answered by
posing the following example that is directly relevant to our
situation:
1. A worker works a regular full 5-day week from Tuesday - Saturday
inclusive;
2. He does not work, nor is paid for, any Bank Holidays
**** What is his *paid* holiday entitlement after October 1st 2007?
It would be great to get an unequivocal answer to that!
Kind regards
--
John Gruffydd (Mold, Wales, UK)
Forget completely about the concept of bank holidays !! - it is NOT
relevant to statutory entitlements, which *unequivocally* ought to be
24 paid days of holiday pa post-Oct. 2007, or 4.8 weeks: alles
klar !!??
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: David
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- References:
- Statutory minimum holiday
- From: John Gruffydd
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: nightjar
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: john
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: nightjar
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: john
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: tim \(not at home\)
- Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- From: John Gruffydd
- Statutory minimum holiday
- Prev by Date: Re: Libel Question, help needed
- Next by Date: Re: Child, 12, guilty of raping boy
- Previous by thread: Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- Next by thread: Re: Statutory minimum holiday
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading