Holiday Pay for part-time term-time workers

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that workers who work irregular hours throughout the year are entitled to holiday pay based on average earnings calculated over a 12 week period, rather than at a rate of 12.07% of annualised hours.

This issue was raised in Brazel v The Harpur Trust where a part-time teacher, working on a zero hours contract during term time, was required to take her 5.6 weeks’ annual leave during the school holidays. The school paid her holiday pay at the rate of 12.07% of her yearly earnings in line with the ACAS guidance. Mrs Brazel argued that receiving 12.07% of earnings is not the same as paying holiday by reference to a week’s pay pursuant to the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially dismissed Mrs Brazel’s claim stating that the application of the 12.07% calculation was correct. The ET found that to do otherwise would result in an “unfair windfall” as she would end up receiving circa 17.5% of her annualised hours as holiday pay. On appeal, the EAT reversed the decision maintaining that the overriding principle is that part-time workers are not to be treated less favourably than full-time workers; there is no principle to the opposite effect. It therefore found that the 12 week calculation was the correct method of establishing holiday pay and that the statutory scheme must not be read down to cap payments at 12.07% of annualised hours.

Whilst this finding is logical it does contradict the ACAS guidance of calculating holiday pay for those who work irregular hours. Employers who have implemented this method of calculation are therefore encouraged to review their practices in light of this new finding. 

CONTACT CHRIS

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798089.
Views & Insight
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Justifying 'fat cat' pay

Partner, Keely Rushmore examines what the pay ratio reporting could mean for your company

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should The Equalities Act 2010 be updated?

Chris Cook, partner and head of employment at SA Law, comments on a recent study which found that one in three employers admitted they were less likely…

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should employers modify dress codes in this heatwave?

Partner and Director of Finance and Business support, Gill Garrett, comments in The Times on whether extreme weather should see alterations to dress codes…

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Getting to the meat of employee choice

Companies must be made aware of discrimination laws when dictating what workers can and can't do, says Keely Rushmore, Partner at SA Law.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Worker versus Self-Employed

The Gig economy makes more headlines as The Supreme Court agree Mr Smith was a worker and Pimlico plumbers had fallen foul of employment rights.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Reality TV and the protection of stars' welfare

Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook comments in The Daily Star on the increasing pressure for production companies to ensure the welfare of contestants.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
The Government's guidance on The Trade Union Act 2016

How should employers' implement the Trade Union Act 2016? Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook explains.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Dress codes and sex discrimination - The Government's response

Read Head of Employment, Chris Cook's analysis of the Government's response to the 2015 Nicola Thorp "wear heels or go home" controversy.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
To ban, or not to ban social media? That is the question

Employment Partner, Keely Rushmore writes for City A.M.

Read More
SA Law Employment Laptop

© SA LAW 2018

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.