header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 June 2008 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Giving sick workers a break

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Employers may need to ensure that workers who are off sick do not miss out on their holiday entitlement, says Charles Pigott

Advocate general Verica Trstenjak delivered her opinions in two references about the interpretation of the Working Time Directive 2003/88 (WTD) on 24 January 2008. The British reference (now known as Stringer and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs C-520/06) is essentially about two questions: whether a worker can re-designate a period of sick leave as holiday leave, and how payment in lieu of untaken holiday leave should be calculated for workers who have been off sick for all or part of the holiday year. The German reference (Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund C-350/06) was made before Stringer but takes the questions it poses to their logical conclusion by tackling the question of whether a sick worker should be allowed to carry forward unused holiday leave.

At the heart of the two references are the brief provisions of Art 7 of the WTD dealing with

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll