The tribunal was asked as to the determination of an employee’s ‘average weekly rate of remuneration’ in a particular period of 12 weeks for the purpose of calculating a redundancy payment, and whether a weekly sum which the employee was paid to cover the expenses he incurred in carrying out his duties should be included in the calculation of his ‘weekly rate of remuneration’.
Held: The tribunal identified two categories of payment (categories (1) and (3)) that would ordinarily be regarded as part of an employee’s weekly remuneration; and one type of benefit (category (2)) that would not. It depended on whether the sum ‘represents a profit or surplus in the hands of the employee’, and to the extent that it did it formed part of his remuneration. Indeed, the court went further and said that any sum ‘which is paid as a wage or salary without qualification is part of the employee’s remuneration’. Benefits in kind are not pay.
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson
Citations:
[1974] IRLR 283
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others CA 3-Apr-2009
The company appealed against an adverse finding on its holiday pay payments to its pilots, saying that the pay was subject to the 2004 Regulations alone. The Directive suggested that holiday pay should be at normal average rates of pay, but the . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others CA 3-Apr-2009
The company appealed against an adverse finding on its holiday pay payments to its pilots, saying that the pay was subject to the 2004 Regulations alone. The Directive suggested that holiday pay should be at normal average rates of pay, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.330252