British Airways plc v Williams

Last updated

British Airways v Williams
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameBritish Airways plc v Williams and others
Argued24–25 February 2010
Decided25 March 2010
Neutral citation[2010] UKSC 16
Reported at[2010] 2 All ER 1053
Case history
Prior historyAppeal from British Airways Plc v Williams & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 281 (3 April 2009), setting aside British Airways Plc v Williams & Ors, [2008] UKEAT 0377_07_2802
Subsequent historyBritish Airways plc v Williams & Ors [2012] UKSC 43 (17 October 2012)
Related casesWilliams and others v British Airways plc (Social policy) [2011] EUECJ C-155/10, Case C-155/10(15 September 2011)
Holding
  • Unanimously referred a number of questions to the ECJ regarding the level of pay which needed to be paid during annual leave and the level of discretion member states were entitled to in this area.
  • The ECJ subsequently ruled that all pay components which relate to the personal and professional status of an airline pilot must be maintained during that worker's paid annual leave, and it is up to the national court to assess that the criteria have been met.
  • Claims were remitted back to the employment tribunal for further consideration of the appropriate payments to be made to the pilots in respect of the periods of paid annual leave in issue.
Case opinions
MajorityLord Mance (Lords Walker, Brown, Clarke & Lady Hale concurring)
Area of law
Employment, EU Law

British Airways plc v Williams (2011) C-155/10 is a UK labour law and EU law decision by the European Court of Justice regarding the right to holidays with pay, which is found in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights article 24, the Working Time Directive and the Working Time Regulations 1998. Williams itself was decided under analogous rules found in the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004. It held that variable components in pay, such as bonuses, must be included in the amount of pay people receive while they are on holiday. [1] [2]

Contents

Facts

Williams, and other pilots who worked for British Airways claimed that their holiday pay was too low, because it only reflected his fixed salary, and not his bonuses. Williams' comprised a fixed annual salary, a "flying pay supplement" that went up the more he flew, and a "time away from base" which went up the more he was away from home. The flying and time away allowances were capped. Properly construed, his contract suggested that his holiday pay would be at the rate of only his fixed salary. Williams, however, contended that this was contrary to the Civil Aviation Working Time Directive, [3] as implemented by the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, [4] (sector-specific implementations with the same objective as the Working Time Directive and the Working Time Regulations 1998 in this respect). In absence of particular provisions, the pay while on leave should be "normal remuneration". British Airways contended that because the Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 221 to 224 did not have provisions on how to determine a week's pay, the rate should be determined with reference to the contract.

Under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, which enacted the European directive 2000/79/EC, airline crew are entitled to a minimum of four weeks 'paid annual leave'. Under UK law, this meant that airline crew were in general entitled to 'normal or comparable pay' whilst on leave. BA crew were paid a basic fixed wage, but they also received additional payment in the form of a 'Flying Pay Supplement' and a 'Time Away from Base Allowance'. During periods of statutory leave, staff, including the appellants, were paid according to their basic wage, without any allowance for time that they would have spent flying, or away from base, had they been working according to their usual patterns.

A case was brought in the Employment Tribunals by approximately 2,750 BA pilots, who argued that the 'normal pay' condition under UK law meant that BA were obliged to pay them as though they had spent time away from base and on flights during their annual leave. Their claim was successful in both the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal found for BA, holding that whilst European Directives set out a broad principle that employees were entitled to four weeks leave at a rate of pay which was comparable to their regular pay, BA were not in breach of any domestic statutory obligations by failing to pay employees exactly what they would have earned had they worked through their holiday.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined to address the issues presented by the case and instead opted to refer a series of questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the Directives and the issues raised in the appeal. The certified questions asked:

  1. to what extent the process of defining 'normal or comparable pay' fell within EU and/or domestic law,
  2. whether it was sufficient that the level of pay agreed between employers and employees did not dissuade employees from taking their annual leave,
  3. was it a requirement that employees were paid either (a) precisely their 'normal' pay or (b) at a comparable level to their 'normal' pay, or was neither option explicitly required by EU law,
  4. assuming one of the options suggested by question 3 was correct, what period of time is relevant in determining a worker's 'normal' pay,
  5. assuming one of the options suggested by question 3 was correct, what approach should be taken when a level of pay is dependent on a worker's level of engagement in particular activities (i.e. flying), what approach should be taken when a statutory limit to the amount of engagement a worker is permitted to undertake would have been breached had the worker actually carried it out.

European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice subsequently ruled in 2011 that all pay components which relate to the personal and professional status of an airline pilot must be maintained during that worker's paid annual leave, and it was up to the national court to assess that the criteria have been met. The UKSC then ruled in 2012 that the claims were to be remitted back to the employment tribunal for further consideration of the appropriate payments to be made to the pilots in respect of the periods of paid annual leave in issue.

See also

Notes

  1. E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 6, 286
  2. "British Airways plc v. Williams & Others (Supreme Court)". Old Square Chambers. 16 October 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  3. Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA)
  4. "Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, SI 2004/756

Related Research Articles

Labour laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

Overtime is the amount of time someone works beyond normal working hours. The term is also used for the pay received for this time. Normal hours may be determined in several ways:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span> Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

Japanese labour law is the system of labour law operating in Japan.

Annual leave is a period of paid time off work granted by employers to employees to be used for whatever the employee wishes. Depending on the employer's policies, differing number of days may be offered, and the employee may be required to give a certain amount of advance notice, may have to coordinate with the employer to be sure that staffing is available during the employee's absence, and other requirements may have to be met. The vast majority of countries today mandate a minimum amount of paid annual leave by law.

<i>Eweida v United Kingdom</i>

Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.

United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 are a statutory instrument forming part of United Kingdom labour law. They aim to combat discrimination against people who work for employment agencies, by stating that agency workers should be no less favourably treated in pay and working time than their full-time counterparts who undertake the same work. It gives effect in UK law to the European Union's Temporary and Agency Workers Directive.

European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Working Time Regulations 1998</span> United Kingdom legislation

The working time regulations 69 is a statutory instrument in UK labour law which implements the EU Working Time Directive 2003. It does not extend to Northern Ireland.

<i>British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue</i>

British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue[2002] EWCA Civ 494 is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd (2006) C-131/04 is a European labour law and UK labour law case concerning the Working Time Directive, which is relevant for the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Stringer and Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund [2009] UKHL 31 is a European labour law and UK labour law case concerning the Working Time Directive, which is relevant for the Working Time Regulations 1998.

<i>Serco Ltd v Lawson</i>

Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.

The Danish Holiday Act is a Danish law regulating holiday time for employees.The act states how many days of paid holiday most employees in Denmark are legally entitled to. The law covers employees who receive wages for work performed in compliance with an employer, not including freelancers and employees working for the state. A new law was passed on 25 January 2018 by the Danish Parliament. It consists of a new concept of concurrent holidays and includes a transition period from 1 September 2019 – 31 August 2020 before being implemented on 1 September 2020. The concept of concurrent holidays allows employees to earn 2.08 holiday days each month, which they have access to use immediately, as opposed to the old scheme where workers earned holiday days for the following year.

<i>Russell v Transocean International Resources Ltd</i>

Russell v Transocean International Resources Ltd [2011] UKSC 57 is a UK labour law case, concerning the interpretation of the Working Time Directive. It is notable that Lord Hope remarked that the right to paid holidays is probably best interpreted as requiring that workers may take a whole week at a time, rather than individual days.

Labour law regulates the legal relationship in Bulgaria between individual workers and employees as well as between coalitions and representative bodies.

<i>Uber BV v Aslam</i> British labour law case

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.

Legislation relating to employment in the Republic of Ireland governs the provision and content of the contract of employment, payment of wages, length of the working day and working week, and dismissal procedures.

References