Daily News

View All News

UK – Holiday pay should reflect a worker’s normal remuneration

27 March 2015

In order to accord with European law, holiday pay should reflect a worker’s normal remuneration, according to the outcome of an Employment Tribunal (ET), reports law firm Osborne Clarke.

The case, “Lock vs British Gas Trading Ltd”, centred on the unlawful deduction of wages based on holiday pay being calculated only on a worker’s basic salary in according with the UK Working Time Regulations (WTR); and not including a payment for sales commission. The commission being a significant part of his remuneration package.

For workers who have normal working hours, as Mr Lock did, the black and white wording of the WTR only permit payments other than basic salary to be taken into account in holiday pay in specific and limited circumstances. These circumstances include commission paid for the "amount" of work done (i.e. a payment reflecting productivity) but not for success (i.e. a payment such as Mr Lock received for closing a sale).

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had previously held that this was contrary to the Working Time Directive (WTD) which required Mr Lock should be paid his normal remuneration i.e. his basic salary and a payment reflecting his sales commission.

If not, Mr Lock would suffer an adverse financial impact potentially deterring him from actually taking holiday. The question for the ET was therefore whether UK rules on calculating holiday pay, provided for in the WTR, could be interpreted to give effect to the ECJ decision.

The ruling by the Employment Tribunal was as follows:

The UK’s WTR can be read to be consistent with the requirements of the WTD that a worker should receive his or her normal remuneration during the four weeks statutory holiday provided for in the WTR derived from Europe. This accords with the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision on overtime pay and indeed, the ET stated that it saw "no difference in principle between payment for non-guaranteed overtime and payment in respect of commission so far as annual leave pay is concerned".

To achieve this in Mr Lock's case, a new regulation should be read into the WTR, which essentially required Mr Lock's holiday pay to be calculated as if he fell within the category of workers whose weekly pay varied by the amount of work done. This calculation already takes into account any additional payment made to a worker reflecting the amount of work done in a specific time frame (along with basic salary).

Osborne Clarke noted that the decision by the ET was unsurprising and is in line with other cases that holiday pay must reflect normal remuneration and is limited to the four weeks statutory holiday derived from European law.

Of more interest for those grappling with revising their holiday pay calculations will be the issues still to be determined in this case and the light an ET may shed more generally on this area. Among the key points for employers, the law firm stated:

The ECJ has already indicated that commission such as Mr Lock's (here it was roughly 60% of his remuneration package) should be reflected in holiday pay as being part of his normal remuneration. Would that conclusion be different if the commission element was significantly less or payments were perhaps less regular?

Was the British Gas commission scheme already structured to compensate him for holiday periods so there was no unlawful deduction in respect of holiday pay? This was an issue expressly left open by the ET in Mr Lock's case to be considered at a future date.

Should the subsequent hearing find that there was an unlawful deduction in respect of holiday pay, the thorny question arises of how is the commission element of holiday pay calculated. This is potentially controversial given the fluctuating nature of commission payments and the scope for employees to thereby manipulate the system to take holiday when the commission element of their holiday pay will be at its highest.

Again, the ET here appears to have, on the face of it, neatly avoided this issue by again stating that this is a matter for a later hearing. However, the words inserted by this ET into the WTR to enable it to be interpreted to bring cases such as Mr Lock's in line with European law, expressly refer to sales commissions being treated as remuneration varying with the amount of work done for the purposes of calculating holiday under s221 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This section provides for a 12 week reference period in such cases so it will be interesting to see how a subsequent ET tackles this issue. 

If there is found to be an unlawful deduction of wages will the ET follow the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decision in the overtime cases that any claims for unlawful deduction of wages should be limited to those deductions where there is no more than a three month gap between them?

On the face of it, in the immediate term, the ET’s decision unfortunately does not provide employers with the additional clarity needed on how commission (and indeed, other similar payments) should be reflected in holiday pay. What is notable is the explicit reference to a scheme being structured in a way that the commission element of holiday pay is already taken into account and it will be interesting to see how a subsequent hearing deals with this and, as relevant, any applicable reference period for calculating holiday pay.