Important court ruling for part year workers inc term time only/peripatetic re holiday pay

[noblegiraffe]

This is thought to affect thousands of workers so definitely worth checking.

"The judgment clarifies that all workers on a permanent contract throughout the year, including part-year workers, are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks’ holiday a year, irrespective of how many weeks a year they actually work.

This decision is likely to have a significant impact on the holiday pay of term-time workers, peripatetic music teachers, exam invigilators, sports coaches and other workers in the education sector who work on a casual, zero-hours or part-year basis.

Historically, many schools have been applying the 12.07 per cent method, which was previously set out in Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidance, to calculate holiday pay for their part-year staff.

....An extreme example of how this might apply is an exam invigilator who works only three weeks a year but who works 40 hours in each of those three weeks. Assuming they are employed under a permanent contract, this part-year worker would be entitled to 5.6 weeks paid leave at their average week’s pay, which would be their weekly pay during the only three weeks they work each year.

This results in holiday pay almost twice the amount of their actual annual earnings."

More details here:

www.tes.com/magazine/leadership/hr/how-schools-should-calculate-holiday-pay-part-year-workers

Sorry, but that's crazy. It makes no sense to pay someone for 3 weeks work but to then have to pay them for 5 weeks holiday too. I would imagine whoever it is will appeal that ruling?

The appeal the case was based on was denied

"The Harpur Trust changed the way it calculated the holiday pay of Lesley Brazel - one of its music teachers - in 2011, which reduced her pay packet.

Ms Brazel works for a variable number of hours each week and is only paid for the hours she teaches.

Before 2011, her holiday pay was calculated using her average week’s pay and multiplying it by 5.6, but then this was changed to be prorated based on the number of weeks she worked each year.

Ms Brazel initially had her claim for unlawful deductions turned down by the Employment Tribunal, but had an appeal accepted. The Court of Appeal then rejected a counter-appeal from the trust, and a further appeal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today."

www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/school-holiday-pay-ruling-could-affect-thousands-staff

I'm guessing the exam invigilator case will be solved by not having them on a permanent contract (I don't expect many are, anyway?)

I agree that’s crazy and can’t possibly be the intention of the ruling.

It would in theory allow someone to start a job, almost immediately take all their holiday allowance with pay, then resign and move on to somewhere else.

Almost all employers count leave allowance for new starters as racking up by 2 or so days per month until it’s been earned. So someone who only works for an employer for a few weeks might earn a day or two of holiday, which is fair enough, but not over 5 weeks, that's madness.

I do understand that some term time only workers might have been denied their full paid leave because they work and are paid for 39 weeks a year and are then unpaid in the 13 week holidays when in reality they should work 39 weeks a year, receive at least 5.6 weeks paid leave, but then take the remaining 7 weeks or so of the year as unpaid leave so they are paid at least 44.6 weeks a year.

But surely no employer is going to give a full year's paid holiday allowance to someone who only works for them for a short period?

More useful thread with people who understand the details here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/employment_issues/4573156-anyone-else-waiting-for-brazel-v-harpur-trust