Breaking: Supreme Court will determine how much holiday term-time workers must receive
Yesterday we heard that the Supreme Court has given permission for the employers to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision in Brazel v Harpur Trust.
23.06.2020
Last year, the Court of Appeal decided that a teacher engaged on a term time only contract was entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday per year, even though she did not work for the whole year. It said that this was a minimum requirement and it couldn't be pro-rated to reflect the number of weeks she actually worked. Nor, could the employer apply the 12.07% 'formula' for working out her holiday entitlement. You can read our thoughts on the decision here.
Many of our clients were worried they would face a surge in claims and, how they would fund historical underpayments. In some cases that fear has been justified. Unison is very active in this area and has encouraged many workers to pursue claims for unlawful deductions from wages.
So, it's good news that the Supreme Court will determine this issue. We don't yet know when the hearing will take place and will keep you posted.
Have you received a holiday pay claim?
It's possible, the Supreme Court will reach a different decision, but for now, the Court of Appeal's decision remains the law. If you receive a claim for underpaid holiday for anyone working on a permanent contract for part of the year (such as on a term time basis), we recommend that you take advice as it may be possible to stay the claim pending determination of the issue by the Supreme Court.
Please contact our holiday pay expert, Glenn Hayes for more advice.
Key Contacts
Related Articles
Expert CommentBelief discrimination: it's not what you say, it's the way that you say itWhen can an employer dismiss a member of staff who says something that is protected as a belief, but offends other people?
Expert CommentDon't ask, don't get: EAT clarifies the right to be accompaniedThe EAT has considered whether an employee can bring a claim for breach of the duty to be accompanied where he wasn't told about the purpose of the meeting and didn't ask to bring a companion.
Expert CommentDo you include a training repayment clause in your contracts of employment?The Court of Appeal has for the first time considered whether training cost clawback provisions in employment contracts are in restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable.
