[overscan]

I've been told that in New Zealand I won't be entitled to any annual leave until I've worked for a whole year.

Is this correct? I'm resigned to less leave (used to get 28 days, plus Christmas week off, plus bank holidays in England) but it seems a bit of a raw deal to have to work for a whole year without any time off....

And here I was thinking New Zealand was all about a better work/life balance :uhoh

[Milliemoo]

Yup, not all companies do this, but it's fairly common.

You accrue a years worth of holiday in your 1st year, but you can't take any paid leave until after the 1st year. Seems bonkers to me cause if you leave the company they have to pay you a whole heap of holidays in one go.

My employer let me take unpaid leave though in the 1st year.

Milliemoo

[cappuccino]

I had that with the first company I worked for here and another thing they put in the contract was NO sick leave for the first 6 months!!

[Kerry and David]

That is the policy for the Company that David works for, although he can take unpaid leave.

[peebles16]

Yup pretty standard although some let you take what you have accrued month on month if that makes sense (OH organisation did). Thank goodness for time off in lieu and unpaid leave :)

Karenx

[BadlyDrawnGirl]

When I was there I was working through an employment agency (Hudson) and I was allowed to take my paid holiday/sick leave as soon as I'd accrued it…but then things might be different on the permanent side of things.

[chocolate cake]

I've been told that in New Zealand I won't be entitled to any annual leave until I've worked for a whole year.

Is this correct? I'm resigned to less leave (used to get 28 days, plus Christmas week off, plus bank holidays in England) but it seems a bit of a raw deal to have to work for a whole year without any time off....

And here I was thinking New Zealand was all about a better work/life balance :uhoh


Crikey, that's ridiculous. I get less hols than had in UK, but I certainly wouldn't have accepted that if it was rigidly enforced.

[M-Squared]

I can take my time off up to 2 weeks in "debt" to my employer, and get the statutory 4 weeks off per year. Depends on the company.

[CJ22]

My employer said that that was 'technically' the case, but he didn't know anybody who actually enforced that. He said most places let you take leave as you accrue it, as it wasn't in anybody's interest to let it pile up. My company has an enforced shut-down over xmas anyway, so we have to take 6 days leave, accrued or not.

[dharder]

And here I was thinking New Zealand was all about a better work/life balance :uhoh

Certainly not for me, quite the opposite in fact.

Apart from that, I can take leave as soon as I have accrued it, and have taken all that plus unpaid in the first six months, but have asked for that before signing the contract.

Does anyone have a website equivalent to the DTI site in the UK where one can look these things up?

Daniela

[Jo Jo]

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/factsheets/

[TheBigSaxon]

Coming from the US, this is quite common here among hourly workers. You can always negotiate your paid time off when you are negotiating salary.

When I was in the US, I was the Application Portfolio Manager for a very large food service company in Philadelphia. When they recruited me from Microsoft, I had neglected to negotiate vaca time and ended up with only 2 weeks, whereas with Microsoft I had 28 paid days off per year, plus 10 floating days, plus holidays. Imagine my shock when I switched. Ever since then I ALWAYS negotiate PTO, always a minimum of 3 weeks vaca with 5 additional sick or floating days.

[dharder]

Ever since then I ALWAYS negotiate PTO, always a minimum of 3 weeks vaca with 5 additional sick or floating days.

Well they do have a legal minimum here, so you won't have to negotiate for 3 weeks and 5 sick days...

I looked at the site that JoJo posted above, and it says that employers don't have to let you take leave in the first year, but it doesn't say that they can't. To be honest, I didn't negotiate that part, I just took that leave as I accrued it. The unpaid leave that I knew I needed to take is the part that I mentioned at the interview.

It is a question worth checking with HR, though, at what point you can take your leave.

Daniela

[Gar1]

As stated above you dont need to negotiate 3 weeks and 5 sick days

Reading the document link supplied by Jo Jo it says :-

From 1 April 2007, all employees are entitled to at least four weeks paid annual holidays a year.

Also sick leave can be carried over to a max of 20 days.

[Familyofmonkeys]

OH was allowed to take leave as it was accrued and as far as the shutdown over xmas....as long as he was straight by the end of the holiday year, they didn't care whether he owed to company some holiday.

Other thing is here he can legally take sick leave if I am ill so he can look after the kids......brilliant for me because if I was ill in UK either had to slog through the day feeling like death warmed up or he would end up using up his holiday.

[dharder]

Other thing is here he can legally take sick leave if I am ill so he can look after the kids......brilliant for me because if I was ill in UK either had to slog through the day feeling like death warmed up or he would end up using up his holiday.

I had carer's leave in the UK for that :) Five paid days in addition to holiday.

Sigh.

Daniela

[peebles16]

OH gets carer's leave here in NZ too :) Not me though although may have to check that one... :o My employers are very flexible with time off in lieu too though and am saving up a fair pile to have a couple of weeks off at summer holidays. Very open about home working during school hols :yes
Karenx

[thewoodies]

Other thing is here he can legally take sick leave if I am ill so he can look after the kids......brilliant for me because if I was ill in UK either had to slog through the day feeling like death warmed up or he would end up using up his holiday.

Thats good to know when you havnt relatives to help you - my OH used up most of his holiday here UK last year due to my diffiult pregnancy -:nice1

[mgbridges]

Other thing is here he can legally take sick leave if I am ill so he can look after the kids......brilliant for me because if I was ill in UK either had to slog through the day feeling like death warmed up or he would end up using up his holiday.

Yep, my OH gets that too which has been of huge benefit on a couple of occasions. The school where I work as a teacher aide has also been really flexible when I had to take time off to look after a sick DS.

Anneliese

[jonshutt]

I have the same issue - my contract just says something like '4 weeks holiday after the 1st year'.

I'm not sure what that means, or what the 'standard practice' / law is. I did a 5 week contract, and got the equivilent to 4 weeks off during that, so it seems harsh that in a full time job, I don't get anything.

Do I really get nothing in the first year, then 4 weeks each year there after?

or do I get 4 weeks to take 'at the end of the 1st year', and then for the 2nd year and beyond I get 4 weeks to take throughout the year?

I'm goign to ask them, but I thought I'd get some advice first!

Thanks

[victoria24]

looking through my large t&c's pack it seems to me that in nz the worker is treated far more favourably than in the uk although that might just be the company and not the law.

[SarahEDH]

I was able to take leave as soon as it accrued --

[CJ22]

I was able to take leave BEFORE it had accrued, so long as it was within reason and within my annual holiday allowance.

[James 1077]

I was also allowed to take leave as it accrued and can go into negative leave for short periods if necessary.

[CJ22]

I imagine it depends on where in the year you start. As I started work in November, there's little point saving holiday for the following winter - the bulk of it gets spent in the summer over Dec-Jan-Feb-March. Indeed my company has a 6-day compulsory brown-out over the christmas period. So I had to go into deficit and will probably stay that way until near the end of my personal working year.

[Tesall]

As an employer rather than an employee this rule is brilliant. Makes things alot easier and I must admit that I have been rather 'arbitary' in who I let take leave in advance. Had one eomployee that was very militant about his work hours/practices... so I made sure I followed the law exactly. He quit over it, which I can but assume was a good result for both of us.

[dharder]

As an employer rather than an employee this rule is brilliant. Makes things alot easier

I'm afraid I don't see any advantage of doing it this way than any other. What exactly IS the advantage?

Daniela

[NZAussieGirl]

Hi

Standard is that on the anniversary of your start date you will be credited with 20 days annual leave. If you have taken any of your accrued leave to that date, this will be taken off already.

The same with sick leave, after 6 months from your start date, you are credited 5 sick days, and then another 12 months after that.

Most payslips will show the no. of holiday days you have remaining on them.

On the 2nd anniversary, the same applies, you get another 20 days.

Most places will let you take a certain amount of accrued leave, but maybe not all. This is mainly because if you leave the firm, and owe them money ie. notice period not completed, reimbursement of costs/ items booked up on staff accounts etc. they can retain the holiday pay owing to you to cover these items.

You are entitled to all public holidays however.

Hope this helps.

[CJ22]

As an employer rather than an employee this rule is brilliant. Makes things alot easier and I must admit that I have been rather 'arbitary' in who I let take leave in advance. Had one eomployee that was very militant about his work hours/practices... so I made sure I followed the law exactly. He quit over it, which I can but assume was a good result for both of us.

What is the advantage of requiring a work-force to defer their leave for so long? That seems to go against the grain of current practice, which is to acknowledge that a decent work-life balance requires regular breaks from work. Indeed some companies are very stringent about making sure their staff DO take leave in a timely manner. I'm not having a go, I'm just intrigued to know your reasoning.

I don't think I'd work at a company that forced me to work a whole year before allowing me any leave. This seems like an unenforceable rule to me. Fortunately, it doesn't ever seem to actually be enforced.

[Tesall]

I'm afraid I don't see any advantage of doing it this way than any other. What exactly IS the advantage?

Daniela

It is nice to be able to be flexible with it to employees that are flexible with you and be inflexible to employees that are inflexible with you. It takes time to figure out what sort of employee they are. Although with the new 90 day rule this will be easier as I will just get rid of them. Obviously you wouldnt need to do this except on very rare occasions, but if you get employees that are very militant about things, it pays to follow the rules exactly and dont break any of them, and making them take no leave for a year is one of them.



I don't think I'd work at a company that forced me to work a whole year before allowing me any leave. This seems like an unenforceable rule to me. Fortunately, it doesn't ever seem to actually be enforced.

It is enforced by companies and it is enforcable.

I gave an example of why I liked it.