May 24, 2012

Holiday Pay Revisited

A recent EAT decision has looked at the tricky area of a workers’ entitlement to holiday pay and the ability to carry over holiday from one year to the next. The case considered whether a worker who neither took, nor tried to take, holiday entitlement during a number of years’ absence was entitled to statutory holiday pay. The EAT concluded he was not.

The consequences of this EAT decision are as follows: 

  • a worker has to give notice to their employer that they want to take holiday - otherwise they don’t get holiday or, it follows, holiday pay;
  • workers that do not use their holiday entitlement (and have not requested to take it) during a leave year will lose their entitlement at the end of that year;
  • the position regarding workers on long term sick leave is slightly different, however. Workers can choose to take their holiday entitlement (and be paid for it) or request that the holiday entitlement be deferred to a later period. If no holiday is requested, it will lapse at the end of the leave year.

The decision applies only to statutory holiday (granted under the Working Time Regulations) although by extension, it is likely to apply to any additional contractual holiday (unless there are provisions to the contrary within the employee's terms and conditions). As part of their decision, the EAT also confirmed that there is no obligation on an employer to inform a worker of their right to request holiday.

Whilst this decision does help employers in many ways, it raises other questions - what is long-term sick leave, for example? This EAT decision also directly conflicts with another recent EAT decision, which is currently being appealed. We will provide a further update once the Court of Appeal rules in this area - currently anticipated to be at the beginning of 2012.

Furthermore, a related ECJ case has determined that there can be a limit to the length of time an employee on long-term sick leave can carry over untaken holiday. In this particular case, a 15 month limit specified in a collective agreement was considered reasonable and enforceable. Employers should consider, therefore, imposing time limits for employees on long-term sick leave to take holiday. This could help avoid (expensive) claims for holiday pay after several years of absence. Note that it is not yet clear, however, whether periods shorter than 15 months would be permissible. 

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Naomi Feinstein has over 20 years of experience dealing with all aspects of employment law, both contentious and non-contentious and including transactional work. She has particular experience advising on employment issues arising from mergers and acquisitions (including coordinating employment advice on cross-border sales and acquisitions) and on the employment aspects of business restructurings and reorganisations. Naomi provides day-to-day employment advice to clients across a wide range of sectors, including banking and financial services, insurance, commerce, manufacturing and retail...

+44 (0)203 349 8736

About the Author

Associate

Russell Lamb has more than 10 years of experience advising on both contentious and non-contentious employment matters. Russell has particular experience in the UK Transfer of Undertakings legislation and defending Employment Tribunal discrimination claims. His industry experience includes advising clients in the areas of global insurance, management consultancy, travel, catering, construction and financial services, including a focus on investment banking

44 (0) 203 349 8708

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.