Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

amerikat

(4,909 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:54 AM Apr 2016

Can the lounge please check my logic?

Last year(2015) I had 28 hours of vacation time that I didn't use. I took a couple of days off in early April 2016.
The company I work for claims my vacation hours expired on March 31(2016). I disagree. Before I present my defense can you check my logic. I only ask because they have done this to coworkers also and I think they are wrong
based on the company policy statement which reads...

"Up to 50% of your Vacation hours may currently be carried over into the next calendar year, they must be consumed by March 31st of the following calendar year."

My logic says the hours from 2015 can be carried over to 2016 and must be consumed by March 31st the"following year which is 2017".

It's a good company. I think they are just confused by their own statement.

Edit to change of to off.

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Turbineguy

(37,329 posts)
2. 2015 is "currently"
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:06 AM
Apr 2016

2016 is "next"

2017 is "following"

That's how I read it. Anyway, I think that taking away accrued vacation is a bad idea. Although saving up months and taking it at once is a problem too.

Phentex

(16,334 posts)
8. Your logic may be correct but I don't know why their policy would allow it...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:59 AM
Apr 2016

they have worded it wrong but I am guessing they mean for people to use up their vacation by March 31st of the year immediately following the year it was earned. Sounds like they want people to use up their vacation and not carry it.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
4. The problem is with how they've phrased the policy
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:22 AM
Apr 2016
"Up to 50% of your Vacation hours may currently be carried over into the next calendar year, they must be consumed by March 31st of the following calendar year."


This statement may be grammatically interpreted to agree with your statement. However, I feel that it is somewhat obvious that the intent was as follows:
"Up to 50% of your Vacation hours may be carried over into the next calendar year; they remain available until March 31st of that year."

You would have trouble convincing a party of your position based on the phrases "into the next calendar year" and "of the following calendar year" apparently not agreeing. Your assertion (that 14 hours of 2015 vacation) remains available until 31 March 2017 falters a bit in that the New Year's 50% reduction could be applied twice to the same set of hours.

Arguing with payroll may not be in your best interests.

amerikat

(4,909 posts)
5. I get 80 hours vacation. so up to 40 can be carried. i'm only asking for the 28 hours
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:31 AM
Apr 2016

left over from 2015.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
7. You can explain your view regarding the phrases containing the words "next" and "following".
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:47 AM
Apr 2016

No one can really fault you for making the interpretation you have explained here.

IMHO it is without a doubt that the policy as written contains ambiguities. Most payroll departments list any paid time off (PTO) available on your check stub. Your first check for a pay period ending on or after the first of April should have reflected the number of hours to which you had eligibility. If you are paid weekly for weeks ending on Fridays or Saturdays, the check you received last week should have reflected the lost hours. If you took the time before you received that check or if they don't list vacation on your stub, you may have an case.

OTOH if this has happened before and they've not let you have the benefit, your case may be weak. The same is true if they've disallowed the benefit to others.

It is important that employees be treated fairly and the company may balk at the idea of giving you the benefit of the doubt when they've denied others the same.

amerikat

(4,909 posts)
10. They use a payroll company.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:26 AM
Apr 2016

As of today the 28 hours are still shown as carryover vacation hours. However they deducted the time I took off from what are called floating holidays. We are a 24/7/365 operation. I often work holidays without extra pay and
get floating holidays to make up for it.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
12. Vacation usually has a process associated with it.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:20 AM
Apr 2016

One usually checks in with management about the days to be taken in some written form. Take your copy of your stub and written vacation approval to your manager and ask him/her to correct the mistake.

amerikat

(4,909 posts)
13. Yes all vacation requests are made thru the third party payroll site.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 09:04 AM
Apr 2016

He thinks he corrected it by taking my compensation from other time earned and not from the 28 hours
of carryover. The request was granted. I asked it to be taken from the rollover time. I'll keep working on this
and I will eventually get the 28 hours back.


malthaussen

(17,195 posts)
9. It is ambiguous as written...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:04 AM
Apr 2016

... but if in practice the company has already interpreted "following year" to mean "next year," then they won't make an exception for you. Your only recourse would be legal arbitration, in which case you might win your point (ambiguous language is usually interpreted against the party who wrote the language), but all of HR and the company's administrators will hate you -- and so will any co-workers who have previously been burned by the policy. So what's that 28 hours worth to you? Note that even if your interpretation is reasonable by logic or law, that doesn't mean you'll win your point.

The language is strikingly similar to the old "Reserve Clause" in baseball, which was ultimately overturned after long legal battles; but the players who first began to fight it in court were soon anathema to the entire league, and now of course traditionalists bitch that free agency has ruined the sport.

-- Mal

amerikat

(4,909 posts)
11. Our site administrator interprets it this way.
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:38 AM
Apr 2016

Not sure if HR or legal interprets it that way. I'll ask for clarification from higher up the food chain.

I believe I can do this anonymously through a third party provided by the company. They offer help
in issues such as drug abuse, tax problems, legal stuff.

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»Can the lounge please che...