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
Can Legal Action be Taken Against Discriminatory Recruitment Criteria?

It has been ruled by several employment tribunals that gender critical beliefs should not be discriminated against in the workplace, and any discriminatory…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
What Harpur Trust v Brazel Means for Holiday Pay

An increased holiday entitlement may benefit up to 700,000 workers following the Harpur Trust v Brazel Supreme Court judgement.In a recent article published…

Read More
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Views & Insights
The Impact of Failure to Follow the Correct Procedure When Making Redundancies

Stephanie Clarke explains the legal consequences employers face if they fail to follow the correct redundancy procedures.

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
Photo of a red arrow SA Law
Views & Insights
Google: Parent Firm Alphabet Announces Worldwide Redundancies

Chris Cook comments on the recent redundancies made by Alphabet, a parent firm of Google.

Read More
Education Open Book SA Law
Views & Insights
Workers Who Breach Proposed Anti-Strike Law En Masse 'Unlikely' to Face Sackings

Gita Patel discusses the implications of the Government's proposed plans on anti-strike legislation.

Read More
SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
Which Way to go With Work From Home

In a recently published article, James Cresswell discusses flexible working and what it includes after James Dyson criticises the Government’s plans to…

Read More
SA Law Employment Laptop
Views & Insights
Staff Monitoring: Ensure you Consult Before Imposing a System

It’s becoming more common that employers want to avoid a ‘Big Brother’ management style when it comes to monitoring staff, so what’s the best way to do…

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 2023

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.