header-logo header-logo

Lawyers downplay holiday pay ruling

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

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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll