Everybody loves a holiday and, in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“the WTR”), workers and employees are entitled to receive holiday pay for time spent on annual leave.
On 17 March 2021, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) handed down its most recent decision relative to holiday pay, that being the case of Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Limited UKEAT/0040/20 (“the Smith case”). The parties to this case will be familiar to some of you, after all the parties’ litigation history stems back a good few years now (the Supreme Court ultimately finding in 2018 that Mr Smith was a worker, not a self-employed contractor). However, this year’s judgement concerned the issue of holiday pay, specifically whether the appellant, Mr Smith, could carry over the right to receive payment for annual leave previously taken but for which he had not been paid.
Mr Smith had worked for Pimlico Plumbers Limited as a plumbing and heating engineer from August 2005 until May 2011. In August 2011, Mr Smith raised proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for a number of claims, one of which was holiday pay. The total amount of holiday pay being claimed by Mr Smith was £74,000, which was the amount of unpaid holiday pay alleged to have accrued during his entire time working for Pimlico Plumbers Limited.
Pimlico Plumbers Limited challenged Mr Smith’s employment status, claiming that he was an independent contractor, but the Supreme Court held that Mr Smith was in fact a worker. This was good news for Mr Smith, as it meant that he was entitled to certain rights under the WTR. Mr Smith’s status of worker meant that the holiday pay claim returned to the ET.
When the claim for holiday pay was heard by the ET in March 2019, the case was dismissed on the basis that it was time barred. It had been brought outwith the three-month statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable for Mr Smith to have brought his case within the time limit. The ET did not interpret the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd (C-214/16)  2 C.M.L.R. 10 (hereinafter referred to as ‘King’), as saying a worker was entitled to raise a claim for recovery of holiday pay relative to leave taken but unpaid.
Unsatisfied with the ET’s application and interpretation of King, Mr Smith appealed to the EAT.
The decision of the EAT
The EAT dismissed Mr Smith’s appeal.
It was held that the ET’s application and interpretation of King was completely correct. This was because the decision in King was relative to annual leave that was untaken and did not suggest that a worker could carry forward their right to payment if they had taken unpaid annual leave, as Mr Smith had. The EAT also agreed with the ET in their refusal to accept his claim late. It had been reasonably practicable for Mr Smith to have brought the claim in time, and so there was no basis to extend the time limit.
This case provides clear guidance that King only applies in situations where annual leave is untaken. It does not apply where leave is taken but not paid. The case also clarifies that employers do not have a potential liability with regard to unpaid leave taken by workers in previous years. It is therefore inevitable that the latest chapter in the Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Limited story will be widely relied upon in future cases concerning the carry-over of holiday pay. I would think that employers will welcome the judgement in the Smith case and find it very useful when dealing with issues relative to unpaid annual leave.
If you require any advice regarding holiday pay, please get in touch with Blackadders’ Employment Team working in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth and across Scotland.
Blythe Petrie, Trainee Solicitor
The opinions expressed in this site are of the author(s) only and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Blackadders LLP.
Blackadders takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the content of this site is accurate and up to date. The site is not, however, intended as a substitute for seeking legal or other professional advice but rather as an informative guide to the services provided by Blackadders and topical legal developments. Site visitors should always seek advice tailored to their specific situation. Consequently, Blackadders accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered by anyone acting or failing to act on the basis of information contained on this site. Downloading of material contained on this site is at the user’s own risk and all necessary virus checks must first be carried out by the user. Blackadders is not responsible for the material found on any web sites linked to this one and links to this site may only be made with Blackadders prior consent.
Blackadders owns the copyright in this blog and all material contained on it. The material on this site may be downloaded for personal use only and must not be altered. Otherwise, Blackadders’ written consent is required before any material on this site is reproduced, copied or transmitted in any way.
Information passed to us via this site is kept confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties except if authorised by you or required by law.
© Blackadders LLP 2022
Members of the Law Society of Scotland.
Blackadders Solicitors is a trading name of Blackadders LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in Scotland No SO301600 whose registered office is 30 & 34 Reform Street, Dundee, DD1 1RJ. Reference to a ‘partner’ is to a member of Blackadders LLP.