to ask if you know about Harpur v Brazel?

[prepared101]

Inspired by a post on the employment board but posting here for traffic. This was a massively significant ruling in UK employment law and will disproportionately affect women as it focuses on term time/reduced weeks/atypical working pattern (zero hours) contracts.

If you work on an hourly basis you might accrue holiday at a rate of 12.07% of each hour worked. This is now incorrect and you should receive a minimum holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks based on your average working hours over 12 months but, crucially, excluding weeks not worked.

Basically, if you work 35 hours a week, 39 weeks a year you should receive the same holiday entitlement (or pay in the case of term timers with no bootable holiday entitlement) as a person the same hours on a full year contract.

I'm not clear if the ruling will give rise to claims under part time work regulations for the same principles to be applied to contractual leave entitlements in excess of 5.6 weeks but regardless the ramifications and potential costs of the ruling are huge.

If it is the case that the ruling extends beyond the statutory entitlement we will probably stop using term time contracts because we may as well employ someone on a full year contract. Another indirect blow for working women.

Anyway, my AIBU is to ask if you had even heard about this!?

Wait so some who works part time gets the same paid holidays as someone who works full time?

I consider myself well versed in Major HR policy / emolument law etc but I don't really understand this. In my head / opinion, as a part time worker entitled to 6 weeks holiday per year, I get 6 full weeks off, but am paid less than a full time salary as I am part time.

Surely employers will simply offer PT annualised hour contracts and the employee can then choose their hours during term time - in which case they wouldn't get the same holiday entitlement even if they chose to work FT during term time?

It's not about part time hours so much as reduced weeks.

Do you work reduced weeks?

Normally a term timer would receive an entitlement that is pro rata based on their hours and weeks. This ruling means that calculations can be pro rata'd based on hours but not weeks. So if you work 39 weeks you should be paid for at least 44.6 weeks (possibly, probably more based on the full time contractual entitlement).

Similarly the 12.07% calculation is no longer advisable - easier to Google why than me to explain!

I'm not sure that would work. The way around it would be to use contracts with need dates and break service because you can pro rata an entitlement based on weeks of employment ends.

IMO this is unethical and again would disproportionately affect women.