Workers who do not take holiday do not automatically lose it at the end of the holiday year
The ECJ has handed down an important decision on carrying over holiday with significant consequences for employers. In two cases referred by the German Courts Kreuziger v Land Berlin and Max-Planck-Geselleschaft v Shimizu the ECJ held that under the Working Time Directive a worker who does not seek to take holiday does not automatically lose it at the end of the holiday year. This means that on termination a worker may be entitled to a payment in lieu of accrued and untaken holiday from the current and previous holiday years. In one of the referred cases, the worker had only taken 2 days holiday and asked for pay in lieu of 51 untaken days from 2012 and 2013.
The Working Time Regulations (“WTR”) provide that any unused statutory leave will be lost the end of the holiday year. The Courts have held that the exceptions to this are in the case of long-term sickness absence or maternity leave, where the worker cannot take leave, or where the employer has unlawfully failed to provide for paid holiday. However, in contrast, in this situation the worker is ostensibly in a position to take holiday but for whatever reason does not ask to do so.
The Court considered that because a worker is the weaker party and to ensure they are not dissuaded from exercising their right to take holiday by suffering detrimental consequences, the onus should be on the employer to exercise “due diligence” to enable the worker to take their paid holiday entitlement. The employer is not required to force the worker to take leave but instead should encourage the worker to take it and give them sufficient and accurate information in good time about the risk of losing their leave at the end of the holiday year if they fail to take it. The Court also held that if the worker deliberately refrains from taking holiday in full knowledge of the consequences, after being given the opportunity to exercise the right to annual leave, the Directive does not preclude loss of the right or the allowance in lieu.
- This decision puts the onus on the employer to manage holiday by “specifically and transparently” ensuring that the worker is in a position to take the holiday he or she is entitled to.
- It is likely to affect organisations where the culture is not to take holiday or the worker feels under pressure from volume of work such that taking leave is very difficult. If a worker has a significant build-up of untaken leave, this could indicate other issues e.g. with workload or work-related stress, which also need to be addressed.
- Employers should ensure there is a system in place for monitoring each year how much holiday workers have left with sufficient time to remind them of this and enable them to take it. Ideally, this should be at least 3 months or more before the end of the holiday year.
- Workers should be specifically encouraged to take holiday, formally if necessary, and made aware of any limits on carry-over and that they might lose leave if they do not take it. Line managers and/or HR should ensure they keep a record of any conversations.
- This decision applies to the four weeks leave available under the Directive and will override any contractual terms which restrict carrying forward leave. It is still possible to limit carrying forward the extra 1.6 weeks leave under WTR and any additional contractual leave. It is also advisable to have a provision in the contract specifying that the four weeks leave under the Directive is deemed to be taken first.
- It is possible under the WTR to give workers notice to take holiday and this could be an option for employers to consider in the case of workers with a lot of leave left to take late in the year.
- Employers should remember this applies to workers as well as employees.
- It is not clear from the decision how many years can be carried forward although in decisions on long-term sickness the Courts have decided that between 15 and 18 months after the end of the relevant holiday year was appropriate.
For more information please contact David Green.
When can you set off claims against different elements of a project
The Court’s decision raises important drafting considerations for construction contracts involving multiple elements of a project.
Drafting terms and conditions or negotiating a contract? Be wary of "unusual" and "exorbitant" exclusion clauses
When drafting a set of terms and conditions, companies must adhere to the requirements contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Stop, collaborate and listen: Top 10 Tips with Collaboration Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips on collaboration agreements - what should you know?
Preparing your company for sale
We set out here some initial steps to consider in anticipation of a sale.
ESG investment and the challenges for trustees
What challenges does the ESG revolution present for trustees of private family trusts?
The impact of COVID-19 on commercial and residential tenancies
What impact has COVID-19 had on commercial and residential tenancies? Read more here.
Flexible working requests: 5 tips for employers
Charles Russell Speechlys advises discoverIE on its acquisition of Antenova
discoverIE is a leading international designer, manufacturer and supplier of customised electronics to industry.
Q&A: Separate blocks, common parts and enfranchisement
Miriam Seitler and Lauren Fraser answer queries relating to leaseholders seeking to acquire the freehold.
Coded messages for landlords and tenants
“What does the code of practice mean for landlords and tenants? Read more here”
The family court’s role in micro managing 'trivial' disputes
The recent decision has dealt with the family court’s role in micro managing “trivial” disputes in relation to children
Taxing horizons and fiscal black holes
A super-massive black hole at the centre of the nation’s finances means that tax reform and rates rises look increasingly likely.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on acquisition of Westgate IT
Westgate IT specialises in providing IT support to businesses in the South West.
Q&A: Wrestling with restrictive covenants
Camilla Lamont (barrister at Landmark Chambers) and Real Estate Disputes Partner Emma Humphreys answer a pair of covenant queries
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Grape Paradise on the acquisition of a fine wine business
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised Grape Paradise on the acquisition of the Sarment Group in the China Mainland territories.
Grab the tail by the horns - Why is tail spend so critical in today’s outsourced portfolio?
It’s usually invisible, but in all likelihood, you’ve got tail spend.
Nick Hurley quoted by the Society for HR Management on the UK government's proposals to prevent workplace sexual harassment
The U.K. government introduced legislation in July 2021 for employers to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment on the job.
Collateral Warranties – Are they also a ‘Construction Contract’?
What are collateral warranties and what do they mean for your construction contracts? Read more here.
Succession Planning for Landed Estates
The first in our series of articles on succession planning for landed estates covering a wide variety of matters.