Notes
- ↑ [2004] ICR 430, [2003] IRLR 350
| Common fields |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Parallel fields | ||
| Related systems | ||
| See also | ||
| Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Full case name | Caulfield v Hanson Clay Products Ltd and Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd |
| Citation(s) | (2006) C-131/04, [2006] IRLR 386 |
| Keywords | |
| Working Time Directive | |
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.
Employers would give people 'rolled up' holiday pay, by adding a so-called 'premium' to wages if holidays were not taken. In three cases a Tribunal and the Court of Appeal referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether this was permissible under the Working Time Directive article 7, which states that annual leave must be taken, and only if the employment relationship terminates may there be a pay in lieu.
Mr Robinson-Steele worked as a redevelopment agent from April 2002 to December 2003, 5 days a week, or 4 nights a week, in 12-hour shifts, with a one-week break over Christmas 2002. His first 'temporary worker' contract stated entitlement to leave was rolled into his ordinary pay at 8.33% of his hourly rate of £6.25 in the day and £7.75 at night per hour.
The Leeds Employment Tribunal held there was a conflict between an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision and the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session, in MPS Structure Ltd v Munro [1] over whether such 'rolled up holiday pay' was lawful. It made a reference to the ECJ.
Mr. Clarke worked as a hod carrier and brick cutter for Frank Staddon Ltd from 2 April to 23 June 2001. He was on holiday until 24 July 2001, and went back to work but was not paid between 23 June and 24 July. His contract said holiday pay is included within the daily rate of £85 per day (an August pay slip said: ‘Basic 8.689 Holiday 0.756 = £85 per day), but in his contract, before August 2001 there was no breakdown of the holiday pay in his payslips. He claimed holiday pay from 2 April to 16 November 2001.
The Tribunal dismissed his application, and the EAT dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal found there was a break in the continuity of the contract from 23 June to 24 July, and then a new contract. The EAT had ordered the case be referred back to the Tribunal to decide whether before August 2001 there had been any holiday pay in the contract, and any break in employment.
Mr. Caulfield worked for Marshalls Clay Products Ltd as general operators in the clay-making factory at Accrington. He worked 4 days on, 4 days off, except Christmas and Boxing Day. Employees were not paid for the days when they did not work. The GMB collective agreement, incorporated into contracts, stated in clause 3 that holiday pay would be incorporated into the hourly rate, and holidays are taken during the rest day periods in the rota system. Each person could also get two 8-day consecutive breaks, and one 16-day consecutive break, with the timing, agreed locally, and by pooling their 4-day breaks and agreeing with other staff to cover for them while they were off. They had 31 days of holiday per year, and the hourly rate included 13.36% holiday pay. If there was overtime, employees would get 30%, 50%, or 100% more in respect of both normal and holiday pay. Mr. Caulfield and his colleagues took a holiday in June 2001 for up to 16 days, and also rest days. In the end, they worked 182 days, with 24.32 days' holiday pay, at £6.629 in normal pay and 88.6p for holiday pay. They claimed holiday pay for the period between 1 October 1998 and 3 September 2001, arguing the 8 and 16-day leave periods meant they did just as much as other workers who stuck to the 4 days' on 4 days' off system.
The Manchester Employment Tribunal held they should be compensated. The EAT allowed the company's appeal. The Court of Appeal held rolled-up holiday pay did not discourage workers from taking holiday, that this arrangement was properly negotiated by a collective agreement, which was legitimate, and it was not incompatible with the Directive or the WTR 1998. But it referred to the ECJ asking whether rolled-up holiday pay violated article 7 of the Directive; was it different if no more pay was given after a contract inserted a rolled-up holiday pay term; if yes can credit be given for that payment to set off the entitlement under the Directive; and does the employer need to pay the worker during the period of leave or can payments be made in installments throughout the year?
The European Court of Justice held that giving rolled-up holiday pay was not permissible, because it could create a disincentive for workers to take holidays. Holidays are a principle of Community law from which there could be no derogations. Article 7(1) was intended to enable workers to take leave. The point of payment for holidays was that a worker would be in a position comparable during leave as when leave is taken. Article 7(2) made clear that a payment in lieu could be taken only where the employment relationship is terminated. Otherwise, the right to leave would effectively be replaced by a payment in lieu. However, employers are entitled to set off rolled-up pay against periods of leave that are "actually taken".
48 in that regard, it must be recalled that the entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave must be regarded as a particularly important principle of Community social law from which there can be no derogations and whose implementation by the competent national authorities must be confined within the limits expressly laid down by the directive itself (see Case C-173/99 BECTU [2001] ECR I-4881, paragraph 43).
49 The holiday pay required by Article 7(1) of the directive is intended to enable the worker actually to take the leave to which he is entitled.
[...]
58 The Directive treats entitlement to annual leave and to a payment on that account as being two aspects of a single right. The purpose of the requirement of payment for that leave is to put the worker, during such leave, in a position which is, as regards remuneration, comparable to periods of work.
59 Accordingly, without prejudice to more favourable provisions under article 15 of the Directive, the point at which the payment for annual leave is made must be fixed in such a way that, during that leave, the worker is, as regards remuneration, put in a position comparable to periods of work.
60 Furthermore, account must be taken of the fact that, under Article 7(2) of the directive, the minimum period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by an allowance in lieu, except where the employment relationship is terminated. That prohibition is intended to ensure that a worker is normally entitled to actual rest, with a view to ensuring effective protection of his health and safety (see, to that effect, BECTU , cited above, paragraph 44, and Case C-342/01 Merino Gómez [2004] ECR I-2605, paragraph 30).
61 A regime such as that referred to by the questions at issue may lead to situations in which, without the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the directive being met, the minimum period of paid annual leave is, in effect, replaced by an allowance in lieu.
62 It is appropriate to add that Article 7 of the directive is not one of the provisions from which the directive expressly allows derogations (see BECTU , paragraph 41). Therefore, it does not matter whether such a regime of paid annual leave is or is not based on a contractual arrangement.
63 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the reply to the first question referred in each of Cases C-131/04 and C-257/04 and to the fourth question referred in Case C-257/04 must be that Article 7 of the directive precludes the payment for minimum annual leave within the meaning of that provision from being made in the form of part payments staggered over the corresponding annual period of work and paid together with the remuneration for work done, rather than in the form of a payment in respect of a specific period during which the worker actually takes leave.
The second question referred in Case C-131/04 and the third question referred in Case C-257/04
64 By those questions, the referring courts are asking, in essence, whether Article 7 of the directive precludes amounts paid to a worker as holiday pay under a regime such as that described in the preceding paragraph of this judgment from being set off against the entitlement to paid annual leave under that article.
65 The question is therefore whether payments in respect of minimum annual leave, within the meaning of that provision, already made within the framework of such a regime contrary to the directive, may be set off against the entitlement to payment for a specific period during which the worker actually takes leave.
66 in that situation, Article 7 of the directive does not preclude, as a rule, sums additional to remuneration payable for work done which have been paid, transparently and comprehensibly, as holiday pay, from being set off against the payment for specific leave.
67 However, the Member States are required to take the measures appropriate to ensure that practices incompatible with Article 7 of the directive are not continued.
68 in any event, in the light of the mandatory nature of the entitlement to annual leave and in order to ensure the practical effect of Article 7 of the directive, such set-off is excluded where there is no transparency or comprehensibility. The burden of proof in that respect is on the employer.
69 The answer, therefore, to the second question referred in Case C-131/04 and the third question referred in Case C-257/04 must be that Article 7 of the directive does not preclude, as a rule, sums paid, transparently and comprehensibly, in respect of minimum annual leave, within the meaning of that provision, in the form of part payments staggered over the corresponding annual period of work and paid together with the remuneration for work done, from being set off against the payment for specific leave which is actually taken by the worker.
| Common fields | | |
|---|---|---|
| Parallel fields | ||
| Related systems | ||
| See also | ||
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:
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 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.
Sick leave is paid time off from work that workers can use to stay home to address their health needs without losing pay. It differs from paid vacation time or time off work to deal with personal matters, because sick leave is intended for health-related purposes. Sick leave can include a mental health day and taking time away from work to go to a scheduled doctor's appointment. Some policies also allow paid sick time to be used to care for sick family members, or to address health and safety needs related to domestic violence or sexual assault. Menstrual leave is another type of time off work for a health-related reason, but it is not always paid.
Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment[1996] EWCA Civ 1166 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an agency worker did have an employment contract for the purpose of claiming for unpaid wages on an employer's insolvency.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
Working time in the United Kingdom is regulated in UK labour law in respect of holidays, daily breaks, night work and the maximum working day under the Working Time Regulations 1998. While the traditional mechanisms for ensuring a "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" is by collective agreement, since 1962 the UK created minimum statutory rights for every individual at work. The WTR 1998 follow the requirements of the Working Time Directive, which allowed an "opt out" from the maximum working week, set at 48 hours. Other reforms have included the 28 holiday minimum per year, 20 minute breaks for each six hours worked, and a maximum average of 8 hours work in a 24-hour period for night-workers.
Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (1990) C-262/88 is an EU labour law and UK labour law case concerning sex discrimination in pensions.
The Holidays Act2003 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that regulates public holidays. It was amended by the Holidays Amendment Act 2008 and the Holidays Amendment Act 2010. This page includes those changes.
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.
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.
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.
A termination of employment in Argentina is the rescission of an employee's employment contract, decided unilaterally by the employer, with or without a cause. As the requirements to proceed with a termination of employment and the consequences of the decision are regulated by each piece of legislation, there are differences depending on the country whose legislation is to be applied. This article refers exclusively to termination of employees who, having worked in Argentina, are governed by the laws of that country.
