header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 November 2014 / Jessica Corsi
Issue: 7630 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Holiday (pay) time

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

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