Are you still employed, on sick leave, or have you been dismissed?

What happened? Did they dismiss you? Did they fail to respond at all to your Tribunal claim? Why do you think they won't pay? Is your former(?) employer still operating?

You've got nothing to lose by waiting until 16th January. From Becky's post #14, I'd suggest that the solicitor would be likely to conclude that making the redundancy payment would be the cheapest option for your former employer.

As long as you don't lose any of your original holiday entitlement I don't see how this could be classed as harmonising. It's just an admin issue.

The non-renewal of a fixed term contract is a dismissal, but it isn't a reason for dismissal. Becky is absolutely spot on. Especially as you have confirmation that the reason for your dismissal was 'lack of work to justify keeping all full time employees'. i.e. a description of redundancy. Here's a recent case that explains it much better than I could. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0238_12_0211.html

You'll have to wait for an explanation from the employer then. My guess would be that his manager assumed, or was informed, that holiday forms needn't be completed because of the shutdown. However someone forgot to mention the need for those 2 days to be paid as holidays to the person responsible for payroll.

When does the Company's holiday year run from and to? e.g. Jan-Dec, Apr-Mar etc. I'm just wondering whether he'd already used up his holiday entitlement for the year (if it's Jan-Dec), because that would explain why those 2 days were unpaid.

As you've continued to work there after the end date of the fixed-term contract, you will also be entitled to a week's notice. So, if instead of informing you that your employment will end in a week, they just say something like 'we don't need you any longer after today' you'll be entitled to an extra 12 hours notice pay.

OK, see if this helps: Debs normal weekly working hours are: Mon- 1 hour Tue- 2 hours Wed- 3 hours Statutory minimum annual holiday entitlement is therefore 17 days (rounded up from 16.8). That's 17 days in total, not 17x1 hour, 17x2 hours or 17x3 hours. So, if Debs takes a week off the employer pays her for 6 hours and deducts 3 days from her holiday entitlement. But what if she just wants to take 1 day off? Her employer could either: Pay her for 1,2 or 3 hours (depending on whether she chose Mon, Tue or Wed) and deduct 1 day from her holiday entitlement Or pay her for 2 hours (average daily hours) and deduct 1 day from her holiday entitlement. Usually her contract of employment/other relevant agreement would inform her of which method will be used.

By the way, IF your employer had given you the correct entitlement of 19 days (because they can round up but not down, or they could give you a couple of hours off), it would then be OK for them to deduct 1 day from your holiday entitlement for a 0.5 day Bank holiday.

No it isn't. Just because you work 4 hours on some days and 8 hours on others, it doesn't change the fact that you attend work 6 days a week. If you only worked 4 hours every day for 5 or 6 days a week you would still be entitled to 18.8 days holiday for 30th Apr-31st Dec.

15 days is not correct. (nor is 15.1) When you used the calculator you entered 4.5 days worked per week didn't you? You work 6 days per week, so you were entitled to a minimum of 18.8 days from 30th Apr-31st Dec.

You are definitely entitled to more than 15 days a year. You say that Mon, Tue and Thur are half days. Do you also work 2, or more, full days?

Have you signed and returned the contract yet? If not, you could strike out the clause opting out of the average 48 hour maximum working week. It's possible that the employer may rescind the offer of employment if you do this. However, in those circumstances, I don't think that you could be sanctioned by the job centre.

I agree, Becky, that someone on a zero hour contract should accrue holiday entitlement on all hours worked. Dave Section 16 of the Working Time Regulations directs you to sections of Part 14 of the Employment Rights Act in order to discover what payment you're entitled to for your holiday entitlement. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/16/made Your contract is only for 12 hours. I assume that you have been paid for the additional hours that you've worked between 12 and 40. These additional hours would be classed as overtime; whether they were paid at the same rate as your first 12 hours or at an enhanced rate. Unfortunately, your 'normal working hours' are 12. See s.234(1)&(2). So, in your case 'a week's pay' would be whatever you are paid for working 12 hours. See s.221(2). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/XIV The above is based on the information you've posted here. It's possible (but unlikely) that your employer may not have sufficiently covered themselves in the wording of your contract. If you'd like to quote, in full, what it says in your contract about working hours, overtime and holidays; we could check for you.

I'm afraid that you only accrue holiday entitlement on your contractual hours (unless your contract states that compulsory overtime must be worked). So, based on your 12 hour contract, you accrue a statutory minimum paid holiday entitlement of about 1.29 hours for each week worked.

Is she employed by an agency or directly by the Company? How long has she worked for this employer? Does she have contracted weekly hours or is she on a zero hours contract? Had she booked any of 27th-29th as agreed holidays?

No, it isn't right. An employer can only deduct working days from their employees holiday entitlement. Otherwise every employer could count each employees weekends off as their holidays.

Well, that's not very good is it? If they don't have any kind of policy covering their use of the Bradford factor, how is the employer ever going to be able to say that an employee has reached a trigger point? Whether or not weekends count would depend on whether weekends were normal working days under the contract. After all you can't be absent on a day when you wouldn't be at work anyway because it's normally one of your days off.

It depends... Usually the 'set period' would be 1 year, but employers can use a longer or shorter period if they wish. I suggest that your girlfriend gets a copy of the Company's sickness absence/Bradford factor policy to see what period they are using. If it states 1 year in the policy, the boss can't roll the points over to the following year.

It doesn't count for nothing at all. After hanging in there for the last few horrendous years, you'll be leaving on your own terms. 10 years service with one employer is not to be sniffed at these days. It's going to look good on your CV. It's also fairly common for new mothers to look for a role that better suits their circumstances. Wash your hands of this tiresome affair, it's onwards and upwards for you.

No problem. I remember, with horror, your earlier threads about the treatment you've been subjected to and the persistent failure of your employer to deal with it. I don't blame you for not wanting to return there. What are the provisions for sick pay under your contract? I ask because if you've already needed to use up most of your entitlement and you intend to resign; it might be best to resign after the 6 weeks leave so that you receive full pay (while off sick) thereafter. Just in case you don't find another job in that timescale.

Yes, if you need to 'return' for 13 weeks in order to avoid having to repay company maternity pay; 6 weeks of leave and 7 weeks of your GP certifying you as unfit (assuming that he/she agrees) will do the trick.

If your wife's only complaint is that she was expected to work changed contractual hours on her return from mat. leave and her employer can prove that either this wasn't the case or they offered her the hours she requested; it's a fair warning. Otherwise, probably a scare tactic.

When it states 'That you might receive a discretionary end of year bonus in December each year,' this suggests that the discretion is limited to whether, or not, bonuses would be paid at all. So that your employer would have the discretion to decide that in a bad trading year they would pay no bonuses. The fact that it's described as an end of year bonus, rather than a loyalty or incentive bonus suggests that any bonus paid is intended to cover the period of that particular year. Stating that it will reflect your contribution to the team, in the same sentence, further suggests that the bonus is related to that same period. (After all, they wouldn't be able to assess anyone's future contribution.) Also, your employer doesn't appear to have any issues with your contribution to the team during the year (other than the fact that you'll be leaving after it ends). The custom and practice has been that it has been paid each year. You will be working there for the full year; so you had a reasonable expectation that, if the decision was made that end of year bonuses were payable, you would be receiving the bonus. There's nothing there stating that there are any other conditions that need to be satisfied in order to receive the bonus. If your employer had in mind a list of circumstances in which the bonus would be withheld from individual employees these should have been clearly communicated to all employees in advance. You haven't been told until now that someone who's working their notice period isn't entitled to the bonus. I don't think that it's reasonable to add this condition only after someone has resigned. I think that a reasonable employer would conclude that you are entitled to the bonus.