Holiday Pay for Part Year Workers

Organisations must now apply the ‘calendar week method’ to holiday pay calculations for part year workers.

In July 2022, the Supreme Court made a decision on the case Harpur Trust v Brazel. This upheld the previous Court of Appeal decision, that the 5.6 weeks’ annual leave entitlement under the Working Time Regulations must not be pro-rated for part-year workers on permanent contracts.

Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Trust as a music teacher on a permanent contract on a zero-hour basis. She was only paid for the hours she worked, which varied week to week, and she only worked part time during term time. It was agreed that she would take her annual leave during school holidays with payments for this being made in April, August and December.

The law states that all workers in the UK are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid leave or the pro-rated equivalent for part time workers. To calculate the holiday pay owed, some businesses use the ‘calendar week method’ which is to look at the average weekly earnings of the preceding 52 weeks (ignoring any days not worked) and multiply this by 5.6. However, the Trust, like many businesses, used the ‘percentage method’ and calculated holiday pay as 12.07% of earnings in the previous term, which was in accordance with ACAS guidance at the time.

The Claimant argued that she was being underpaid using the percentage method and that her pay should have been calculated based on hours she worked the previous term, which would result in holiday pay at a higher rate of 17.5% of her earnings. She therefore brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages for the difference, and a claim for less favourable treatment on the grounds of her part time status.

Outcome

The Supreme Court determined that using ‘percentage method’ to calculate holiday pay for permanent workers was unlawful and that using the ‘calendar week method’ to calculate holiday pay was straightforward and should be followed.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that this calculation may lead to permanent workers who work irregular hours being paid more holiday pay than those who worked full time. However, it stated that giving a more generous entitlement for part year workers than full time workers did not infringe the directives.

Implications and considerations

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the ‘percentage method’ should no longer be used and therefore workers on permanent contracts will be entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday each year, even if they only work part of the year.

This decision will impact many, including those on zero-hour contracts; individuals who carry out seasonal work; or staff such as teachers and cleaners who have been employed to work term time only.

When calculating holiday pay, organisations should use the ‘calendar week method’ as set out above. This method is unfortunately going to cost many organisations a lot more than they would have budgeted for, as part-year workers will now be paid a higher rate for holiday than would previously have been calculated if the ‘percentage method’ had been used.

If the ‘percentage method’ has been used, it is advisable to conduct an internal audit to find out who might be affected by this decision and work out what the difference is. If workers have been underpaid holiday pay in previous years, they will have three months to bring a claim from the date of the last deduction and could be entitled to recover up to two years’ backdated holiday pay.

CONTACT GITA

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Gita Patel on 01727 798049

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Tesco’s “Fire and Rehire” Tactics

Dismissal and reengagement, also known as “fire and rehire”, is a practice that can be used by employers when employees refuse to agree to proposed new…

Read More
Lets Talk About It SA Law
Views & Insights
Truss’ “bonfire of workers’ rights” Leaves Lawyers Unconvinced

The Conservative Party’s Liz Truss wants to review existing EU worker protections in an attempt to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy.

Read More
Corporate Night View of London SA Law
Views & Insights
Changes to Right to Work Checks

Concessions on right to work checks implemented by the Home Office in the midst of the pandemic, came to an end on 30 September 2022. Gemma Jones explains…

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
Red and yellow leaves, blue sky SA Law
Views & Insights
Why does employment status matter?

How do you know if your staff are employees, workers or self-employed, and what difference does it make?

Read More
SA Law light moving
Views & Insights
What directors can learn from the collapse of NMCN

CFOs and other directors can use the collapse of NMCN to put their own house in order and help ward of the impact of recessionary forces.

Read More
Join our team puzzle piece SA Law
Views & Insights
SA Law expands employment team

SA Law is proud to welcome James Cresswell and Stephanie Clarke to its employment team, bringing the team size up to seven qualified lawyers.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Insolvency insights - the NMCN collapse

Insolvency solicitor, Helen Young and employment lawyer Nishma Chudasama consider what accountants can learn from the failure of NMCN.

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners

© SA LAW 2022

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.