Email
YOUR HR DIRECTOR
  • Home
  • About
  • What We Do
  • Fees
  • FAQ
  • News
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • What We Do
  • Fees
  • FAQ
  • News
  • Contact

news and views
from your hr directo
r

Changes to holiday for "part-year" employees

8/10/2019

1 Comment

 
There has recently been a court of appeal decision about workers who only work part of the year (for example; term time only or school holidays only) and who are on permanent contracts. It’s to do with the way that holiday pay is calculated. Until now, ACAS guidelines have said that using the standard 12.07% ‘casual worker’ holiday pay calculation is fair for these workers. 

The courts however recently ruled that for workers who only work for part of the year but are on permanent contracts (whether zero hours or not), holiday pay should be calculated on their actual earnings averaged over the previous 12 weeks they’ve worked, ignoring any weeks they didn’t work. The court has also said that such employees are entitled to a full 5.6 weeks holiday a year at their average weekly pay, even though they don’t work for the whole year. In practice this means that, for example, if someone works for 26 weeks a year and earns an average of £300 per week, their total holiday pay entitlement would be £300 (a week’s pay) X 5.6, which equals £1680. Using the 12.07% calculation they would only receive a total of £941.46 holiday pay. 

This may not affect many clients, however it might affect some. For those that it does, it is likely to have an impact on employment costs. 

So, if you have any staff who are;

1. On a permanent contract
2. Who only work part of a year

Let me know and I’ll talk you through the issues. This doesn't affect normal part-time staff. 

This ruling only concerns those on permanent contracts who work part of the year (part-year workers). The Court of Appeal noted its ruling could produce odd results in extreme circumstances (for example a cricket coach working one term in a year or exam invigilators only working during exam periods). However, the Court considered that these workers would more likely be engaged on a freelance basis than a permanent contract and so would not be affected by its ruling.
1 Comment
Nina the Nomad link
1/10/2021 12:25:24 pm

Thannks great blog

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    News and (we think) useful advice from Duncan Elliott,
    ​Founder. 

    Archives

    July 2021
    October 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    January 2019
    July 2017
    February 2017
    September 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016

    Categories

    All
    HR Consultancy

    RSS Feed