Managers could now face staff requests for time off to mark non-Christian religious festivals under the new Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

Just one in 10 employers currently operates a formal policy for granting additional time off for non-Christian religious festivals, while less than two in 10 employers operate informal arrangements for staff to be absent at these times, according to new research by IRS.

Christmas and Easter are the two periods in the year when holidays tend to be fixed and both coincide with Christian festivals.

The survey results, based on responses from 115 organisations, also found that:

• Two thirds of the survey respondents benefit from service-related increments to boost basic entitlement.
  
• Three in 10 employee groups receive additional “company days” in addition to basic leave.
  
• Just under half dictate when employees can take some of their annual leave entitlement.
  
• Three-quarters of employees are allowed to carry forward unused holiday to the next year, although there is usually a cut-off point and a limit on the number of days.
  
• Holiday pay is most often calculated as the annual basic salary divided by 260.
  
• The most common compensation arrangements for employees required to work on bank and public holidays is a payment at time-and-a-half, plus time off in lieu.
  
• The public sector is most likely to offer staff an automatic right to carry over annual leave, where 63% of the arrangements provided guaranteed carry-forward of at least some of the remaining holiday entitlement. One-fifth asked employees to seek permission first. This compares to 42% and 40% in the services sector.

Sheila Attwood, researcher/writer, IRS Employment Review, said: “The new legislation does not say that employers must provide time and facilities for religious observance in the workplace. But Acas advises employers to consider whether their own policies, rules and procedures indirectly discriminate against staff of particular religions and, if so, whether reasonable changes could be made.”