Supreme Court's decision on term-time working holiday case due on Wednesday 20 July
Next week, the Supreme Court will hand down its judgment in the long-running case of Harpur Trust v Brazel.
15.07.2022
The issue in dispute is whether an employee engaged to work part of the year on permanent contracts is entitled to at least 5.6 weeks' statutory holiday, or if a pro-rated allowance to reflect the number of weeks they actually work.
Why this case matters
This decision will impact many employers, particularly those in the education sector, who engage lots of staff on term-time only contracts. Many have pro-rated their holiday entitlement to reflect the number of weeks they work each year (usually 39, compared to 46.5 weeks for a full-time employee) and, as the law currently, stands may have underpaid staff.
The decision of the Supreme Court should provide certainty.
We'll keep you posted.
Our newsletters
We publish monthly employment newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.
Our fixed price employment law service
We also have a fixed price employment law service. Please contact Gordon Rodham if you'd like to find out how we can help you avoid these sorts of problems with our fixed-fee annual retainer, or flexible discounted bank of hours service.
Key Contacts
Related Articles
Expert CommentUnderstanding the Equality Act 2010: EHRC updates its guidance for schools and collegesNew guidance for schools
Expert CommentThe SEND White Paper: our viewThe Government’s SEND White Paper aims to create a more inclusive and streamlined system. While we welcome that ambition, the proposals raise important practical concerns about how the system will work in practice.
Expert CommentGender neutral toilets in primary school breached regulations and indirectly discriminated against girlsIn DE and FG v West Lothian Council the parents of a five-year old girl brought judicial proceedings against a Scottish local authority because the toilet facilities in one of its newly built schools were gender-neutral. They argued the council had breached relevant regulations and its toilet policy indirectly discriminated against girls. They also alleged that the effect of the policy harassed their daughter.
