header-logo header-logo

Holiday (pay) time

13 November 2014 / Jessica Corsi
Issue: 7630 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail
corsi_0

The Bear Scotland decision could have been worse for employers, says Jessica Corsi

Last week the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that a specific type of overtime has to be included when calculating statutory holiday pay for workers, as EU law requires workers to receive their normal pay while on holiday. While the ruling, in the joined cases of Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton UKEATS/0047/13/B, Hertel (UK) Ltd v Woods UKEAT/0160/14/SM and Amec Group Ltd v Laws UKEAT/0161/14/SM, will significantly increase many employers’ wage bills going forward, it could have been a lot worse. It is also not necessarily the end of the story and there are still some unresolved issues.

Non-guaranteed overtime vs voluntary overtime

The EAT’s decision concerned non-guaranteed overtime—overtime which an employee is obliged to work if offered, but which an employer is not obliged to offer. This is different from truly voluntary overtime—where employees can choose whether to work any overtime offered. The extent to which voluntary overtime has to be included may still be up for grabs. Questions also

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll