• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • 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

Time to panic about holiday pay?

7th November 2014/in News /by Nicola Brown

It is not very often that you see Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) cases as widely reported as we did with the Bear Scotland case this week, which is a measure of how far-reaching the implications of the case could be.

Our article dealing with the points found in the case can be found here. I wanted to give my view on the case and the practical position for employers.

The Bear Scotland case was about holiday pay for employees who worked non-guaranteed overtime, but of course similar principles apply to other arrangements. Although a large number of employers do offer non-guaranteed overtime, there are even more who offer payments such as commission, bonuses and other allowances who will be worried that the ruling will involve significantly increased costs for them. According to some reports the implications of the Bear Scotland decision could add 5% to the wage bill for some employers.

The first thing to emphasise is that this is a long way from being the final position (although it seems unlikely that the fundamental position about holiday pay will change, the details of how it will work remain to be established). Not only have the employers been given permission to appeal (and I suspect the employees may also appeal on the time limit point) but the Government has also made it very clear that it will seek to intervene in this tricky area. This could take months if not years (especially if it goes to the European courts, which seems likely) to finally resolve itself, and any claims that employees may seek to bring in the meantime would almost certainly be ‘stayed’ until the outcome of the key cases is known.

The one consolation for businesses in the case was the EAT’s view on back pay, i.e. that employees could only claim back pay for a period where their 20 days’ leave was separated by 3 months or less. However, I think there is a strong risk that the EAT’s finding on the time limit point will be reversed, which would be even more bad news for employers. Looking at the way that holiday pay cases have been dealt with in other situations (such as annual leave during sickness) the three month time limit has not been applied in the same way as it appears to have done in the Bear Scotland case. In Bear Scotland the EAT said that cases would be out of time if there was a gap of more than 3 months which broke the ‘series of deductions’ but in cases of long term sickness the ‘series of deductions’ point has been interpreted much more leniently. The EAT judge admitted that the point was ‘arguable’ so I would expect this to be a point which may change as the case works its way through the higher courts. In any event, employees may still be able to bring their claims as breach of contract, for which different time limits apply.

As we have recommended previously, the best thing for employers to do now (if you haven’t already) is to look at what your potential liability might be. Once you have done that, you can consider the options for dealing with that liability.

We expect that different employers will react differently to the decision. Some may immediately move to change their policies in terms of overtime (for example, stating that holiday pay will be calculated based on the average pay of the 12 preceding weeks), others may decide to use temporary workers instead of overtime, and others may sit tight as the decision is likely to be appealed and will want to wait for any further rulings. There is no ‘one size fits all’ answer and your next steps will depend on a number of factors – and we are of course happy to advise you, please get in touch if we can help.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [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
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2014-11-07 17:00:492014-12-03 16:09:31Time to panic about holiday pay?

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • What to expect during 2021 – employment law developments 21st January 2021
  • Did “office banter” about an employee’s memory amount to age discrimination? 21st January 2021
  • Update on Furlough 20th January 2021
  • Restricting Restrictive Covenants? 20th January 2021
  • Q&A: What to expect from a remote Tribunal hearing 20th January 2021
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 2021

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, refuseing 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