header-logo header-logo

05 November 2014
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers downplay holiday pay ruling

Government taskforce to assess the possible impact of decision

The Bear Scotland ruling on voluntary overtime may not be as bad as employers fear, lawyers have said.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that employers must include voluntary overtime when calculating statutory holiday pay for their workers, in Bear Scotland v Fulton UKEAT/0161/14/SM. Employers raised concerns at the prospect of a hefty and potentially backdated bill that they had not budgeted for, with some fearing it could stymie expansion plans.

Donna Martin, employment solicitor at Mackrell Turner Garrett, says it has been “estimated that approximately 5 million workers in the UK could be entitled to more holiday pay at a potential cost to companies of billions of pounds” as a result of the ruling.

However, Jessica Corsi, partner at Doyle Clayton, says: “The impact will be nowhere near as serious as many feared, due to the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) ruling on how far back claims can go.   

“The EAT ruled that once there has been a gap of three months between deductions, workers will not be able to bring a claim in respect of earlier deductions. This puts severe limitations on how far back claims can go. For example, if a worker took holiday in January this year, then a further period in April and then took no further holiday until August, the only claim he can bring now will be that he was not paid correctly for the August holiday. 

“This is likely to put to bed concerns for most employers that they could be facing claims going back to 1998 when the Working Time Regulations came into force, or the start of employment if later.”

She adds that permission has been granted for an appeal so “the question of how far back claims can go is still up for grabs”.

Before this case, employers had to include compulsory overtime only when calculating holiday pay.

Udara Ranasinghe, partner at DAC Beachcroft, says: “Employers who have not already received significant demands for payment or substantial legal claims should quickly brace themselves to do so.”

Business secretary Vince Cable is setting up a taskforce of government departments and business representative groups “as a matter of urgency” to assess the possible impact of the ruling.

Issue: 7629 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll