header-logo header-logo

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

Holiday (pay) time

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll