Following a ruling by the Supreme Court, workers in the UK on part-year contracts could be entitled to back pay from their employers.
In the case of Harpur Trust vs Brazel, Harpur Trust - an independent school operator - attempted to pay Ms Brazel, a part-time music teacher, holiday pay based on the time she worked rather than the holiday pay she was entitled to as an employee, which was 5.6 weeks.
Instead, at the end of term Harpur Trust used Ms Brazel’s average hours worked and paid her 12.07 per cent of that figure as holiday pay, meaning that she received less money.
In 2016, Ms Brazel took Harpur Trust to the Employment Tribunal claiming unlawful deduction of wages. She stated that she had taken 1.87 weeks of leave during the Easter holiday period in 2013, for which she was paid £452.20 - which had been worked out as a percentage of the hours she had worked. Had her holiday been paid on the basis that she was entitled to 5.6 paid weeks per year, she would have been paid £687.26.
Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims - which she appealed against - and subsequently, the appeal was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Harpur Trust then appealed to the Court of Appeal, but that was dismissed.
Martin Tiplady - CEO of Chameleon People Solutions - said to HR magazine:
"For businesses though, the important thing is to be open and transparent about their policies, to be able to defend the way that decisions are taken and for them to be logical. And then to stick to them and not make exceptions.
It is an interesting judgement and a case for which no obvious solution exists or one that will satisfy all organisations. For the implication is that any other outcome would generate at least as many other ‘unfairnesses’ and require disproportionate bureaucracy and administration to operate. In the circumstances, the ruling is the least problematic of many options.
It is, frankly, sad that a case about what is a fairly inconsequential matter, has taken so much effort, time and angst to conclude."
The Supreme Court justices found that Harpur Trust’s method of pro-rating holiday pay to account for weeks not worked was unlawful. On proposing alternative methods of calculating pay for part-time workers, the Court said that this was “extremely complicated” and would require all employers to keep detailed records of every hour worked by employees.
Mathew Gullick QC - Barrister at 3PB Barristers and one of Ms Brazel’s lawyers in the Supreme Court case - said the judgment provided “clarity” and will be of value to term-time workers in addition to part-time workers whose working patterns “do not fit the traditional ‘full-time’ model”.
Colin Godfrey - employment law specialist at Taylor Wessing - commented that the news was good because employers will not be required to adopt complex calculations for part-time employees. But he pointed out that… “those who have previously adopted a pro-rata or 12.07 per cent approach to holiday will find their wage bill increasing and the potential of claims for back-pay.”
