Hi,

Cleaning person would like to get holidays paid in the form of a surcharge on the hourly rate, which seems to be standard.

But how does one compute such surcharge?

Let's say assuming 4 weeks of vacation per year, does that mean 4/52 = 7.7% on top of the hourly wage?

Thanks!

Not quite - the working year accounting for holidays is 48 weeks, so the calculation would be:

4/48 = 8.33%

To check - if you do 48 * 1.0833 you get 52 weeks, i.e. all time paid including holidays.

I'm not sure how it works for public holidays, do you also need to include them?

It's a standard percentage. 8.33 sounds correct...but someone may be able to link you to the official number...

Yes, as they are paid in a normal job.

We have 15/year, though some are on weekends.

Tom

All the staff I had were part time, their holiday pay was 8.33% as other have said above.

The holiday pay must be stated on each pay-slip separately, so that it doesn't just get lumped into the hourly wage.

AHV contributions must be paid on holiday pay, too.

Use an online calculator: https://svazurich.ch/online-services...nuar-2021.html

Is that specific to hourly paid workers?

It hasn't appeared on any of my payslips.

8.33% is standard up to 50 years old, it then it increases as Over 50's get a 5th weeks holiday by law.

Not by law.

Tom

Interesting, I seem to remember the RAV followed the same rule. Under 20's also get 5 weeks

Maybe regional variation?

Under 20 is by law, over 50 not

Are you sure it "must" be stated separately? On contract yes but on each payslip? I fail to understand why this would be needed given its treated like all the rest for deductions etc

There is no legal requirement for a monthly payslip, or even a written contract come to that.

Correct:

https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2..._I/lvl_2/lvl_a

Annoyingly the link doesn't work directly as they just published a new version but you can select the 01.02.2021 HTML version to see it.

On the written contract - not exactly, according to OR:

So you can start without a written contract, but you are in effect entitled to received one.

This is my understanding, yes. There was discussion, and a Swiss Supreme Court judgment, about whether or not staff can be given money instead of taking vacation. The conclusion was that this is not permitted, because the purpose of vacation is to be able to rest from work.

However, the Court acknowledged that this hard to put into effect for people who work only occasionally, and ruled on the special conditions under which it is permissible to make an exception from the general principle.

This article sets it out well: https://www.baizer.ch/aktuell?rID=6976

Der Ferienlohn ist daher grundsätzlich dann vom Arbeitgeber zu entrichten, wenn der Arbeitnehmer die Ferien auch tatsächlich in natura bezieht. Die Durchsetzung des Abgeltungsverbots kann sich allerdings vor allem bei den Aushilfen im Stundenlohn als schwierig herausstellen, was auch das Bundesgericht erkannt hat.

Es ist deshalb zum Schluss gekommen, dass entgegen der zwingenden Bestimmung des OR eine Ferienabgeltung mit dem laufenden Lohn ausnahmsweise zulässig ist, wenn folgende drei Voraussetzungen kumulativ erfüllt sind:

1. Der Mitarbeitende wird unregelmässig bzw. nur sehr kurz beschäftigt wird.
2. Der Ferienlohn ist klar und ausdrücklich, als Prozentsatz oder Frankenbetrag, im Arbeitsvertrag festgehalten.
3. Der für die Ferien bestimmte Lohnanteil ist auch in der Lohnabrechnung separat aufgeführt.

Wichtig: Beschäftigt ein Arbeitgeber eine Person in einem unregelmässigen Pensum und wird diese im Stundenlohn entlöhnt, reicht gemäss Bundesgericht ein blosser Hinweis im Arbeitsvertrag, der Ferienlohn sei inklusive, nicht.

Erforderlich ist, dass der Ferienlohn durch Angabe eines bestimmten Betrages oder eines Prozentsatzes als solcher erscheint, und zwar sowohl im Arbeitsvertrag als auch jeweils auf den einzelnen Lohnabrechnungen.

From the article (with help from deepl):

The vacation wage is therefore generally to be paid by the employer if the employee actually takes the vacation in kind. However, the enforcement of the prohibition of compensation can turn out to be difficult, especially with temporary workers on hourly wages, which the Federal Supreme Court has recognized.

It has therefore come to the conclusion that, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the OR, paying out the holiday compensation with current wages is permissible, as an exception, if the following three conditions are cumulatively met:

1. The employee is employed irregularly or only for a very short time.
2. The holiday wage is clearly and expressly set out in the employment contract as a percentage or in francs.
3. The wage portion determined for the holidays is also listed separately in the pay slip.

Important: If an employer employs a person on an irregular basis and who is paid hourly, according to the Federal Supreme Court, a mere indication in the employment contract that holiday wages are included is not enough.

It is necessary that the vacation wages appear as such by specifying a certain amount or a percentage, both in the employment contract and on the individual pay slips.

Failing to do this leaves the employer vulnerable to be charged for holiday pay, separately, later.

The employee should be informed - or better still, this should be in the contract - that they are receiving the holiday pay each week/month, in proportion to and with their current wage payments, and that therefore they bear the responsibility for saving it to cover the weeks in which they will be away on holiday and not working (and therefore not being paid).

Thanks. I think there is a different process in KT Zürich for the "Facilitated employment" of household personnel where it is clearly spelled that one needs to pay vacation pay in lieu of paying during vacation time.

Indeed, one may pay vacation in lieu of paying during vacation time. Yes. The Swiss Supreme Court expressly permitted that for those who work only a few hours.

The point is that one must specify, in the contract and in the pay-slip, which part of the amount being paid is "wage" and which part is "vacation pay".

There was a court case in which an employer had failed to do those two things. Later, the employee successfully sued the employer for vacation pay. Because the employer had failed to specify, in the contract and on the pay-slips, that a part of the money paid was meant as vacation pay, the employer was held liable and had to pay the vacation money "again". Thereafter, to prevent any further opportunity for confusion on this point, the Supreme Court ruled that it is now compulsory for all employers of all employees to expressly state the holiday wage, as a percentage or in Francs, in the contract, and on the pay-slip.

An employer who fails to properly document this, as defined, is in contravention of the Supreme Court ruling (which, in Switzerland, is regarded as binding, like the law). Such an employer, in default, makes themselves vulnerable to being sued for vacation pay by their employee. In addition, were it ever to get that far, the Court costs would be charged to the employer, since the defect is clearly theirs. That's a very expensive risk, when just doing it properly isn't that much work, once one has figured it out for the first employee.