Pereda is causing major concerns for employers, says Ben Collins
Employers smarting after the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Stringer v HMRC; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund joined cases C-520/06 and C-350/06 [2009] IRLR 214 will be further concerned by the ECJ’s most recent observations on the Working Time Directive in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA: C-277/08.
Indeed even employees may find it difficult to decide how to manage their annual leave entitlements—the decision in Pereda is difficult to reconcile either with Stringer or the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) (WTR).
Stringer
Stringer laid great emphasis on the importance of the right to paid annual leave, which has been described by the ECJ as “a particularly important principle of Community social law from which there can be no derogations” (see BECTU C-173/99; [2001] IRLR 559; and Merino Gomez C-342/01; [2004] IRLR 407—as well as Stringer and Pereda). It stressed in particular the different purposes of annual leave (rest, relaxation and leisure) and sick leave (recovery from ill health).
As
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
