You could be reading this having had a four day working week last week.
That is, if Anzac Day was "Monday-ised" under the Holidays Act 2003. Instead, Anzac Day in New Zealand is observed on the day on which it falls, which in 2010 meant it fell on a Sunday.
If you work Monday to Friday - that meant no public holiday for you.
Given there are 11 possible public holidays provided for in the Holidays Act 2003, 2010 hasn't been a great year for employees who work Monday to Friday. Waitangi Day fell on a Saturday (which also means we won't get it next year either) and Anzac Day, of course, a Sunday.
And we can't even say "roll on 2011", because in a further cruel twist of scheduling, in 2011 Anzac Day falls on Easter Monday - so two public holidays combine to become one. So does that mean we get a "super- public holiday" (like the Auckland supercity)?.
No, it means we get one 'combined' public holiday, instead of two. On the bright side, apparently the next time that this scheduling will happen is 2095, so for many it will be a once in lifetime experience.
On the downside, effectively forfeiting a public holiday isn't something I would imagine too many employees will be keen to repeat in a hurry! "I observed two public holidays in one day" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as, "I saw Halley's Comet!"
I've mentioned in previous blogs that changes to the Holidays Act 2003 are being considered by the Government following a review of the legislation conducted in late 2009.
Submissions on extending the number of public holidays were considered, as well as allowing people to choose to observe different public holidays (such as Jewish holidays as an alternative to Christmas, if that was appropriate to an employee).
Interestingly, there were apparently a number of submissions calling for St Patrick's Day to be given public holiday status. One might think that is one idea that is unlikely to be adopted...'to be sure, to be sure'.
The main objection to extending the number of public holidays, or even Monday-ising them, is likely to be the cost of compliance and the potential lost productivity, at least from an employer's perspective.
That is, if an employer is required to pay employees for a public holiday, they incur additional costs. Those costs are potentially higher for employers who open on public holidays and need to pay time and a half for the hours worked (and are likely to also incur liability for an alternative holiday if the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee). For those businesses that do not open on a public holiday there is a question of lost productivity.
Some employers, particularly those in the hospitality industry, are able to balance the increased costs by charging customers a surcharge - most commonly 15 per cent (and the outcry about that is its own separate topic!).
However, spare a thought for store owners who can't as easily charge a surcharge - such as supermarkets. I must admit to having a soft spot for the McDonalds advert in which they promote no surcharge, giving the example that they don't charge you more if an employee drops a dozen eggs either - even though that increases their costs.
I know of one savvy and extremely successful client who decided their loyal customers wouldn't wear a surcharge on public holidays, but they wanted to service the clients by being open for business.
In a café environment, they made a decision to cover the increased public holiday costs by increasing the cost of their flat white coffees by 50 cents (they were cheaper than their competitors). Sure this meant their customers paid more for their coffee, but the price was still competitive, and the increase was not arbitrarily tied to a decision to have a coffee on a particular day.
This not only balanced out the cost of opening on public holidays, but resulted in an overall increase in profit - and no unhappy customers complaining about surcharges (or any fear of being 'outed' by Paul Henry on Breakfast television!)
A further point worthy of some consideration is: what makes Anzac Day and Waitangi Day different? A number of public holidays always fall on a Monday, and therefore don't need to be "Monday-ised" - think Easter Monday, Queen's Birthday and Labour Day.
The Christmas and New Year holidays are Monday-ised - so why not Anzac Day and Waitangi Day, given their arguable national significance?
One argument in favour of "Monday-ising" Waitangi and Anzac Days is that it is simply unfair to promise workers 11 public holidays, but leave it to the fate of the calendar as to how many actually get observed.
Another argument in favour of "Monday-ising" those public holidays it that it would better enable observance of them. For example, attendance at a Dawn Service on Anzac Day. While apparently attendance levels at Dawn Services around the country are at record highs, would they be even higher if the public holiday was Monday-ised and you knew you would get a day off work? Or would a day off work make you even more likely to stay in bed?
An argument against "Monday-ising" is that there is something special about the particular dates 6 February and 25 April, and that means that we should not be observing those holidays on the next convenient day, but on those specific days.
Have you noticed people aren't observing Waitangi Day and Anzac Day as much, without a day off work? Is the cost of compliance a relevant consideration? How do you feel about the Monday-ising of these holidays?
Bridget Smith
Bridget Smith is an employment lawyer at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
