A part-time college lecturer claimed holiday pay under Regulation 13. Her rate of pay was calculated with the apparent aim of achieving equivalence with the remuneration of full-time lecturers. The Employment Tribunal referred to the findings of the Employment Tribunal in the employee’s favour: ‘4. In upholding the complaint the Chairman concluded that the contract between the parties, as it existed on 3 September 1998, was for a payment to the Applicant of andpound;17.21 per hour, which payment was solely in respect of hours worked. The Respondent could not unilaterally vary the contract to apportion andpound;3.54 of the hourly rate to holiday pay. That would be to defeat the provisions of the Regulations. Consequently the claim for holiday pay succeeded.’ Upholding that finding, the Appeal Tribunal distinguished their decision in the present case on the ground that the contract in Leather contained an express term that there was no entitlement to paid holiday under the contract.
Held: ‘The contract expressly provided that there was no entitlement to paid holiday under the contract. It follows, on the particular facts of this case, that there was no contractual remuneration paid to the applicant in respect of any period of leave.’
Judges:
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Citations:
[2001] UKEAT 0528 – 00 – 3011, EAT/0528/00
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.168420