• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

If you use the 12.07% method for calculating holiday pay, you need to read this!

15 August 2019

Person calculating pay

The position regarding holiday entitlement for workers with varying work patterns (particularly those who don’t work every week) was considered by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Harpur Trust v Brazel – and the result took many people by surprise!

The facts

The background to the case is that Ms Brazel is a clarinet and saxophone teacher. She worked at one of the Trust’s schools providing individual lessons to pupils. Her working hours would vary depending on how many pupils wanted lessons, but were generally between 10 and 15 hours per week. She was paid by the hour and did not work during school holidays. She was required to take her holiday entitlement during the holidays.

In dealing with her entitlement to holiday pay, the school did what many employers do – they referred to ACAS guidance on the subject. This resulted in them calculating holiday pay on the basis of 12.07% of hours worked. In our experience this is a very common method of calculation for employers to use. The school paid Ms Brazel her holiday pay in three chunks in March, August and December each year, based on the hours she had worked.

Where does the 12.07% come from?

The logic behind it is this:

  • For each holiday year, a worker is entitled to 5.6 weeks’ leave (this is the statutory minimum under the Working Time Regulations).
  • However, when calculating you allow for the fact that those 5.6 weeks of the year will not be worked. 52 weeks minus 5.6 weeks is 46.4 weeks.
  • 5.6 divided by 46.4 is 12.07%.

What method did the Claimant say should be used instead?

The Claimant’s position was that the 12.07% calculation left her worse off than she should have been under the Working Time Regulations. This was because the Regulations state that for people whose working hours vary, holiday pay should be calculated on the basis of an average of the previous 12 weeks’ remuneration. By using the 12.07%, the school had pro-rated her holiday entitlement both on the basis that she was part-time, but also on the basis that she only worked part of the year. She wanted the school to use the method set out in the Regulations.

On the employer’s side, they argued that the averaging method would give an unfairly generous result for the Claimant when compared with other members of staff. Based on the hours in question, it would have resulted in the Claimant receiving 17.5% of her hours worked as holiday pay – a significant difference.

The case went to the Employment Tribunal which agreed with the employer, but the decision was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which found in favour of the Claimant. The school then appealed the case to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s analysis, and rejected the school’s argument. In particular, it concluded that even if the averaging approach did result in a ‘windfall’ for people in Ms Brazel’s situation, that was not a problem. The Part-Time Workers Regulations give protection to part-time workers against less favourable treatment, but there was no legal principle to prevent part-time (and/or part-year) workers from being treated more favourably than their colleagues.

So what does this decision mean for employers?

Although this particular case was about a term-time only teacher, the principles of the decision are likely to be far-reaching to many other working patterns.

It is hard not to feel sympathy for the school in this situation, as they acted in accordance with ACAS advice (and a practice which is fairly widespread).

The decision will affect every employer which currently uses the 12.07% method. Until now, employers have tended to like the 12.07% method, because it gives a practical rule of thumb for them to follow when calculating holiday accrual for casual or variable hours staff. Unfortunately, the Brazel decision will make life much trickier and many organisations will find themselves open to challenge.

It is worth bearing in mind that the averaging method applies only when there are no normal working hours. If there are normal hours of work, then holiday pay should be paid at the employee’s usual rate.

For those with variable hours, the impact of the Brazel case is that in any situation where the 12.07% figure gives a different result to the averaging method, an employer will be liable for the difference.

We recommend that employers check their holiday pay calculations, particularly in respect of employees who work term time only or similar variable patterns where there are periods of time without work. It may be that employees who are aware of this decision will put in claims for back pay as well as insisting on the averaging method being used in future.

If you are dealing with holiday pay calculations for your staff, then we can help. Please call us on 01243 836840 for a no obligation chat, or email us at [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
  • Employer unfairly counted disability-related absences when dismissing 29th June 2022
  • Did an Employment Tribunal correctly award an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code in a sham redundancy case? 29th June 2022
  • Without prejudice negotiations – what is unambiguous impropriety? 29th June 2022
  • Does referring to a man’s baldness at work amount to sexual harassment? 25th May 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only