For advice and assistance on issues relating to holiday pay, please contact our Employment and HR specialists on 01332 226 155.
The Supreme Court has published its judgment in the long-running and landmark case of Harpur Trust -v- Brazel. The case concerns the issue of calculating annual leave and holiday pay entitlements for workers who do not work for a full year (but who are contracted throughout that year) and who have varying hours of work. The Supreme Court’s judgment is likely to have a major impact for employers across the UK.
25 July 2022
Case Study
Under the Working Time Regulations (WTR), workers in the UK have a right to a minimum of 5.6 weeks’ annual leave and are entitled to be paid at the rate of a week’s pay in respect of this leave.
Although holiday pay for workers with variable hours should be based on average weekly pay, many employers adopt the approach of calculating holiday pay on a pro-rata and capped basis, using 12.07% of annualised hours for workers on zero-hours contracts..
In the Harpur Trust case, Mrs Brazel worked for the Trust as a visiting music teacher. Her contract was a permanent zero hours contract and she only worked during school term time. The school year varies between 32 and 35 weeks. Mrs Brazel was only paid by the trust for the work that she performed and was entitled to 5.6 weeks’ annual paid leave, which she had to take during the school holidays.
Prior to 2011, the Trust calculated Mrs Brazel’s holiday pay with reference to her average weeks’ pay over the relevant reference period.
In 2011, the Trust amended the way in which it calculated Mrs Brazel’s holiday pay, in line with ACAS guidance that was issued at the time. The Trust subsequently made three annual payments to Mrs Brazel, calculating her holiday entitlement at 12.07% of her earnings in the preceding school term.
Mrs Brazel brought a claim in the employment tribunal arguing that the Trust’s method of calculating her holiday entitlement meant that she had been underpaid. She argued that her holiday entitlement should be based on her average earnings over a relevant reference period (at the time that reference period was 12 weeks before the annual leave was taken but as from April 2020 the reference period is 52 weeks before the leave is taken).
Case Study
At first instance, the Employment Tribunal dismissed her claim. The Tribunal found in favour of the Harpur Trust, who had argued that pro-rating was important to ensure full time workers were not treated less favourably. Mrs Brazel appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that appeal, finding in Mrs Brazel’s favour. The Court of Appeal later dismissed an attempt by the Trust to overturn this decision. The Trust, consequently, appealed once more to the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, published on 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court rejected the Trust’s appeal and held that the correct method of calculation for part-year workers is to assess a week’s pay based on the average weekly pay for the 52 weeks before the first day of the relevant holiday, ignoring weeks not worked, and multiply this by 5.6. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the method of calculating holiday pay using a reference period did slightly favour workers with atypical work patterns. However, the Court felt that this result was compliant with the WTR and EU law.
This judgment will undoubtedly have a significant impact on employers of permanent part-year workers across both the education and commercial sector. Many employers will need to review the way in which they calculate holiday pay for part-year workers to ensure that staff are receiving the correct amount of holiday pay. Employers may wish to estimate potential liability for unpaid holiday pay where some staff are working atypical hours and only work for part of the year.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More