WTD 1998 - Increased Holiday Entitlements

That should, of course be (25 + 9 BH)!!

Hi Lucinda

Further to Lorraine's response. Your FT employees get a total of 34 days holiday (34 + 9 BH). Your PT employee is entitled to 3.5/5.0x34 = 23.8 days in total.

Hi Lucinda

I assume your aim is that your part-time worker benefits from entitlement to a fair share of bank holidays.
In this case, given that she works 3.5 of 5 days (70% of full-time hours), she would be entitled to 70% of the number of bank holidays that your employer allows full-time workers. So, if full-timers get 9 public/bank days this year, 70% would be 6.3 days. Hope that helps.

Hello Everyone

We get 25 days holiday plus bank holidays. How we would we work it out for our only part-timer who works 3.5 days a week please. Everyone else works 5 days a week & we want to be fair to our part-timer. She doesnt work Mondays which is why I am asking this question.

Thank you.

Rebecca- I think it might be this Court of Session case that you're thinking of. In this particular case, the court decided that, although the part-time worker had suffered a detriment, it occurred because he did not work Mondays, not because he was a part-time worker:

McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd [2007] CSIH 25

The Court of Session upheld the EAT decision that where the employer operated seven days a week, a part-time worker had suffered a detriment compared with some full-time workers because he did not work Mondays and was not given extra time off pro-rata for the bank holidays.

However, since some other full-time (five days a week) workers there also did not work Mondays and did not get any extra time off, the detriment was because he did not work Mondays, not because he worked part time. He therefore lost his case. This case does not test what would happen if the workplace operated for only five days a week, where all full-time workers received the bank holidays off.

Rosemary,

Regardless of which day of the week the individual may work, employees should be treated no less favourably in relation to bank holidays.

To ensure that you are acting fairly, you should calculate the entitlement in the same manner for all staff. Therefore, pro rata figures for 2011 & 2012:

2 days x 6.2 (22 days plus 9 B/H) = 12.4 days entitlement per annum
3 days x 6.2 (22 days plus 9 B/H) = 18.6 days entitlement per annum

The calculation of 6.2 is based on the fact that your full-time employees are working an average 5 day week (31 days A/L divided by 5 days worked), so this figure may require amendment if they are working more than 5 days per week.

You also may find it easier to work out the annual leave entitlement in hours rather than days for all staff, as it simplifies the matter further. However, this is only my personal opinion.

I hope that this helps.

Kind regards,

Amanda

As a gesture of good will we are giving all employees the pro rata time off for the Royal Wedding regardless of whether they are due to work or not - pro rata up to 5 hours which is our normal Friday shift duration.

Hi Please advise - 2 people work two days a week and 2 people work 3 their pro roat holidays equate to 5 BH for 3 days and 3 BH for 2 days, should they therefore be geting pro rota time off on the Royal Wedding day despite who is working?
Holidays entitlement is 22 days plus Bank Holidays.

Note, the tribunal was not our company - it was one I found online. Sorry, not had my coffee yet!

We have recently been looking into this and have also discovered that if you state in your contract that your allow annual leave plus Bank Holidays you do have to pro rata bank holiday entitlement for part time staff - even if their current working pattern means that they do not work on a day that a Bank Holiday falls on ie they work Tues-Thurs. For one employee that works Weds-Fri this means they have an additional 20 hours holiday as they don't work on Monday so miss out on those Bank Holidays!

There was a tribunal which cleared the company from doing this, however it was slightly different as they had a possible 7 day working week which mean even a full time employee could possibly have a work pattern which did not include Mondays so they were not descriminating the employees part time status.

I wonder how many other companies knew this. We now calculate each part timers BHol entitlement at the start of each year - for most we more than cover it but for the odd one of two there is a real impact.

I have had several queries this year about holiday entitlement.
"The Government have given us an extra Bank Holiday" Yes they have. But they have not increased your annual holiday entitlement.
If your contract states 28 days including Bank Holidays, then you have 19 days this year and next (Golden Jubilee) to use as you wish, not 20.
If your contract states 20 days plus Bank Holidays then you have gained an extra day for these two years.

Of course, the entitlement is pro-rata

Sue.
Disregard entitlement to Bank Holidays, doesn't exist for most.

Therefore the company need to allow for 28 days in total, they can enforce all or part of those holidays according to their own opening hours.

For instance, many support workers in schools are required to take the 8 days bank holidays, and to only take the other 20 during the school breaks.

Often the 3 days between Christmas are set, and some factories specify a shut down period.

Companies can dictate when holidays are taken, although this is contractual and should be clarified in writing.

But what if the employment contract specifies that Bank Holidays are in addition to the annual holiday entitlement of 20 days?
Would the enployee now be able to enforce 28 days plus bank holidays?

Mike, the position is as follows.

On 12 June 2007 the Government laid Regulations in Parliament setting out its proposals on increased holiday entitlement under the WTR.

As a result of consultation, changes were made to the draft regulations, including:

delaying the introduction of the second increase from 4.8 to 5.6 weeks until 1 April 2009. The first increase will come into effect on 1 October 2007;

enabling payment in lieu of the additional holiday entitlement (the additional 0.8 weeks) to continue until 1 April 2009;

any time off for bank and public holidays can be included in the additional entitlement (e.g. if you already give your employees 4 weeks' leave plus time off for bank holidays, their holiday entitlement will not increase). This is the key point for you. Bank holidays can be included in the calculation of WTR annual leave;

that the holiday will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for part-time workers (4.8 then 5.6 times their usual working week), regardless of whether or not they usually work on bank holidays;

that the increases from October 2007 and April 2009 will be calculated proportionally depending on when the leave year starts e.g. if the leave year starts in April, employees work a 5 day week and currently receive 20 days including bank and public holidays, after the change employees will be entitled to 2 additional days from October 2007 to March 2008;

that some or all of the additional holiday may be carried over to the following leave year with the agreement of both the employer and the member of staff;

that payment in lieu of the additional holiday will not be permitted from 1 April 2009, except on termination of employment;

There are other changes in the Regulations but these are the key ones in relation to your question.

Martin Brewer
Partner
Mills & Reeve LLP
martin.brewer@mills-reeve.com

Reading this months Workplace Law Magazine - Employment Law Updates.

Can anyone clarify the position on increased holiday entitlements?

We currently provide 20 days holiday entitlement but also allow the 8 Bank holidays in addition on the understanding that these are not statutory. But if legistalion is to be introduced making the inclusion of bank holidays within a 20 day annual entitlement illegal does this mean that the 2 stage rise in entilement will provide 24 days plus 8 bank holidays this year and then 28 days plus 8 next year? If so the ramification on cost to UK employers will be significant to say the least.