• Home
  • Our Services
  • Employment Tribunals
  • Employment Contracts
  • Disciplinary & Grievance
  • Attendance & Performance
  • Flexible Working
  • Latest News
  • Articles & Guides
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Employment Law Services
  • Employment Law Clinic
  • >
  • Contracts of Employment
  • >
  • Annual Leave is Lost When Opportunity to Take Leave Existed

Fraser Preferred to Larner When Opportunity for Leave Existed

On behalf of Hair Division Ltd, Employment Law Clinic successfully argued that Fraser should be preferred to Larner where the worker had the “opportunity” to take leave during the leave year, even if they had not exercised this right before going on sick leave at the end of the leave year.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), in the case of Hair Division Ltd v Macmillan, has addressed apparent conflicts between the cases of Fraser (a case that ruled workers either ‘use it or lose it’ [holiday entitlements]) and Larner (a case that ruled that, where a worker is unable to take their annual leave due to sickness, they are entitled to carry this entitlement forward to a subsequent year).

The employment tribunal had considered that there were “two directly contradictory decisions of the EAT on the position where a worker is absent on long term sick leave and does not attempt to take his or her leave entitlement during a leave year and whose employment terminates during the following leave year”.

The EAT disagreed, finding that the “ratio of Larner does not, however, apply where the employee was not prevented from taking her paid annual leave by sickness.”

In its judgment, The Honourable Lady Smith, sitting at the EAT Edinburgh, found that

“if a worker or employee was at work during the relevant leave year for a period which at least matched her annual leave entitlement and had not requested leave during that period, then no entitlement to holiday pay arises after the end of that leave year.”

In the case of Hair Division, given the employee had “almost seven months available to her during which she was not unable to take leave due to sickness absence but did not do so” the EAT concluded that “Thus, we agree with Mr Limpert that Larner did not apply.” The employee had been in work from 8 March 2010 (commencement of employment) to 28 October 2010, at which point the claimant went on sick leave for the balance of the leave year; the leave year ran from 1 January to 31 December.

 

 

Filed under: Contracts of Employment, Employment Tribunals, Flexible Working, General News by Employment Law Clinic           Post created on: November 7th, 2012

« Employee Owner Bill & Consultation Published
Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals Does Not Include SMP Entitlement »
  • Employment Law News Latest Entries

    • Most Glaringly Obvious Judgment Ever? S38 Employment Act 2002 Is Clearly A Duck!
    • Complicating Employment Laws Even More
    • Overtime Worked should be counted in average pay for holiday pay
    • UK has better than average days paid annual leave in the G20… and the EU #GE2017 #UKemplaw #BankHolidays
    • TUPE ELI is limited to s.1 Statement of Particulars, not whether payments are contractual/non-contractual
  • Employment Law News Archives

  • Categories



Testimonials | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Copyright © 2008-2021 Employment Law Clinic Ltd • Kemp House • 160 City Road • London • EC1V 2NX • 020 3397 2979