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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll