What on Earth is this all about, overtime included in holiday pay, as a small business its bad enough with all the red tape, training, H&S etc etc but to have overtime included in holiday pay is a joke right?
and to make matters worse they say it may be back dated

It seems that this judgment doesn't attend to where the dosh will come from to pay for this ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

With this hanging over them, any small business owner would be advised to wind up his company, pay off any debtors, transfer any pension schemes, the restart under the same name but with 2014 as part of the new company, not quite a phoenix company but may be the only way out. Who knows how far it could be back dated, far better than a bankruptsy and liquidation. my PC is slightly to the right of Genghis
2012 HSE SD4 In Orkney Grey now gone, best car ever.

1998 is when it can be back dated too ! but there is a clause and this would only apply to those who have taken holiday within every three month period going back too 1998 !
there are a lot of grey area's but it will only apply to those who's overtime has been compulsory !

I must admit its another complete sham! Jaguar x-type sport gone
Jaguar x-type 2.2d sport one of my best cars ever sadly gone
Freelander 2 GS auto 2008 most unreliable ever ! gladly gone
Freelander 2 GS manual 2013 only time will tell !

I haven't read the case yet and only saw the headline so I haven't read much at all.

This link may help: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896617 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Just reading between the lines from the news story which is all I have to go on, the EAT are saying that the Government and employers have not interpreted the EU Directive correctly. It doesn't suggest that the EAT made an Article 267 reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ isn't an appeal court that overrules the national courts but it is the place to go when a decision requires interpretation of EU law.

The 'lower' courts in the UK have a discretion to make such a reference to the ECJ but are not obliged to. It is entirely possible that this may be appealed further to the Court of Appeal who are again not obliged to refer but have a discretion to.

Should it reach the Supreme Court, they MUST refer to the ECJ as there is no avenue of appeal beyond the Supreme Court. The ECJ would in due course respond with the interpretation which the court would then apply to the case and rule upon.

Lots of discussion to be had it seems but there is a chance of an appeal yet. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Here is the actual case and judgment. I will have a read through it.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2014/0047_13_0411.html LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Hmm, I'm starting to see why the decision went the way it did based upon earlier cases where an Article 267 reference was made to the ECJ.

In Lock v British Gas Trading Ltd [2014] ICR 813, the court referred to an earlier case and stated:

“…as the Advocate General observed at points 31 to 33 of his opinion, the commission received by Mr Lock is directly linked to his work within the company. Consequently, there is an intrinsic link between the commission received each month by Mr Lock and the performance of the tasks he is required to carry out under his contract of employment.

33. It follows that such commission must be taken into account in the calculation of the total remuneration to which a worker, such as the Applicant in the main proceedings, is entitled in respect of his annual leave.”

In my opinion, it follows from the above that the court would view an employee's overtime as also having an intrinsic link to the performance of the tasks carried out under the contract. Heavy workloads and short staffed could see overtime come into play to keep the workload in control. Been there done that.

Interesting. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

and there was I expecting a bit of a debate ...

Sorry Taz, please debate away, just because it has been decided in court doesn't mean you have to like it. Once I've started reading something like this it gets me very intrigued. Apologies if the jargon is boring!

Here are the final words of Mr Justice Langstaff

"Insofar as the test seeks an intrinsic or direct link to tasks which a worker is required to carry out (stressing those last four words) it would be perverse to hold that the overtime in these cases was not. In my view, therefore, Article 7 requires and required non-guaranteed overtime to be paid during annual leave. I see no scope for any such uncertainty as would persuade me to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union." LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Not boring, you sound just like my brother, he's an Associate Professor in Law now, everything I say is analysed

Good work by him to reach that level!

I will stick with my lowly LL.B.  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Sack all your employees and hire a load of contractors !

I was wondering, quite a few people are now on zero hours contracts (which in my view should be banned, but that's another debate), if your on a zero hour contract it stands to reason that you are entitled to zero pay when on holiday
Does this mean that those on zero hours contracts, that regularily get say 10 hours a week are actually now entitled to 10 hours holiday pay?
In which case this sounds like a fair ruling. Tangiers Orange - gone, missing her
Replaced by Ewok what a mistake - now a happy Disco Sport owner

Here in Oz, many years ago the unions argued a case where those workers on shift work were not being correctly remunerated by being paid standard rates while on leave, so missing out on their "shift bonus". They should be paid their "normal" loading over and above standard rates even whilst on leave.
Some one worked this out to be about a 17% effective cut in pay while on leave.
These workers should be compensated and paid 17% over their standard rate while on leave - the union case.

And so it came to pass that a 17% leave loading should be applied to ALL (I mean ALL) workers while they were on leave, no matter if they were shift workers or not.

The shift workers got their wish and were compensated for their "loss" while on leave.
The rest of the country got a bonus - 17$ EXTRA pay, just to go on leave.

Work that one out for clear and logical thinking.

And you think small business is any better off over here?

Nothing quite like a bit of Left wing EU Socialist MEDDLING to make it harder for a small business to turn a profit now, is there?

I wonder if they inspired Milipede to announce that he was going to soak tax all large Corporations *if* he wins in May 2015? With that ideology, you couldn't possibly be surprised if Ratan Tata decided to ship the entire JLR operation to Brazil, China or India! Vote Liebour!! Foraging near Gaydon....
——————————————
MY13 HSE Lux SD4, Baltic Blue - current, 30,000> miles without fault
MY12 HSE 2.2 SD4, Sumatra Black - gone after 10 months/43,000 fault-free miles