The respondents appealed a finding that they were not due to make additional holiday pay under the regulations. The employer asserted that the hourly rate of pay included a rolled up element of holiday and sick pay. The employee asserted that the contract documentation made no mention of such an arrangement. The employers claimed that the employees knew full well of the arrangement, and the employees denied any such knowledge.
Held: The matter must be remitted to a fresh tribunal. The tribunal had made findings which suggested that the employees were not told, or did not know of any such arrangement, but had not made a finding as to whether the arrangement was part of the contract. This missing step was essential to a conclusion.
EAT Working Time Regulations
Judges:
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Citations:
Times 09-Jan-2002, EAT/598/00, [2002] ICR 682
Statutes:
Working Time Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833) 16
Citing:
Appealed to – Gridquest Ltd T/A Select Employment, Piper Group Plc, XR Associates Ltd v K A Blackburn etc CA 23-Jul-2002
The employer and employees disagreed about whether an element of holiday pay had been included in the rate of pay.
Held: There had to be an explicit agreement between the parties before this could happen. It was not for one side unilaterally . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Gridquest Ltd T/A Select Employment, Piper Group Plc, XR Associates Ltd v K A Blackburn etc CA 23-Jul-2002
The employer and employees disagreed about whether an element of holiday pay had been included in the rate of pay.
Held: There had to be an explicit agreement between the parties before this could happen. It was not for one side unilaterally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.171934