European Court of Justice gives OPINION on unpaid and untaken holidays

Does a worker’s holiday entitlement continue to accrue into successive years if they do not take their annual leave because their employer will not pay them for these holidays?

The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has answered ‘yes’ to this question, in a non-binding opinion.

In the case of King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, the Claimant, Mr King (who was a self-employed salesperson), brought an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim against the Respondent, The Sash Window Workshop, on the basis that he felt he was owed monies for annual leave that he had accrued, but not taken.  In addition, the Claimant sought compensation for annual leave that he had taken, but not been paid for during the 13 years he had been working for the Respondent – his claim for holiday pay therefore amounted to over £27,000.00.  It is of note that the contract under which Mr King was employed, provided no right to paid annual leave and that this contract was terminated in 2012, on his 65th birthday.  The Claimant also submitted a claim for age discrimination.

The claim was initially heard by the ET in August 2013.  It was ruled at first instance that Mr King was to be deemed a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and also that his discrimination claim was well founded.

The Respondent subsequently appealed against the decision of the ET in respect of the holiday pay aspect of the claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowing the appeal and remitting the holiday claim back to the ET.  Mr King then submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal who referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

ECJ Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, stated that employers had to provide “adequate facilities to workers” to enable them to take their paid annual leave.  Tanchev further stated:

“A worker, like Mr King, may rely on [EU law] to secure payment in lieu of untaken leave, when no facility has been made available by the employer, for exercise of the right to paid annual leave … Upon termination of the employment relationship a worker is entitled to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave that has not been taken up.

“I appreciate that the answers to the questions referred I am here proposing would require employers rather than workers to take all the necessary steps to ascertain whether they are bound to create an adequate facility for the exercise of the right to paid annual leave, whether those steps be the taking of legal advice, consultation with relevant unions or seeking counsel from Member State bodies that are responsible for the enforcement of labour law.

“If an employer does not take such action, it will risk having to make a payment in lieu of unpaid leave on termination of the employment relationship. However, this would be in keeping with guaranteeing the effet utile of the right to paid annual leave, a fundamental right of substantive normative weight in Member State law, EU law, and international law, and would also be consistent with the practical reality, recognised in the Court’s case-law, of the worker’s position as the weaker party in the relationship.”

Do employees have to disclose their intention to compete?

In the case of MPT Group Ltd v Peel and others [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch), the High Court was asked to decide whether employees were under a duty to disclose their intention to compete to their employer.

The facts of the case were that Mr Peel and Mr Birtwistle were employed by MPT Group Ltd (a company that produces and supplies machinery, parts and equipment to the mattress industry) in management positions.  The employees resigned from their positions on the same date, Mr Peel giving the reason for his resignation as wanting to work from home and spend more time with his family, and Mr Birtwistle advising he had been offered a position doing ‘panel wiring’.  They denied that they were leaving to form a partnership/start up their own business in competition with MPT.

Both Peel and Birtwistle were subject to extensive confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants within their contracts of employment, to the extent that they were prohibited from soliciting or even dealing with customers with whom they had personal contact, for six months.

After the relevant period had expired however, Peel and Birtwistle incorporated MattressTek Ltd, a company that was in direct competition with MPT, and began selling complex mattress machines.  It further transpired that prior to leaving MPT, both men had copied a large amount of company data which included client and supplier databases, price and discount lists, sales quotations and orders, machinery drawings and manuals, and other documentation crucial to MPT’s business.

MPT sought an injunction against the men based on the misuse of confidential information, breach of restrictive covenants, and also upon a breach of the duty to answer questions truthfully.  In particular they sought an interim injunction prohibiting Peel, Birtwistle and MattressTek from soliciting, dealing or contracting with MPT’s customer and suppliers, and an unlimited injunction preventing them from disclosing or using MPT’s confidential information.

Deliveroo makes changes to contracts for UK Couriers

Following on from my colleague Martin Malone’s article back in March, takeaway delivery Company Deliveroo have now removed the clause in their self-employed courier’s contracts (or ‘supplier agreements’), which stated that the couriers would not be permitted to challenge their self-employed status at an Employment Tribunal.

New contracts (which are now just four pages long) have been distributed to the couriers,  and confirm that they can work for other businesses and no longer need to provide two weeks’ notice to terminate their contract with Deliveroo.

Dan Warne, Deliveroo UK MD, provided the couriers with a letter by way of further explanation, which stated the following:

“We know that many riders work with other companies as well as Deliveroo, including our competitors. That is fine with us: as an independent contractor you are free to work with whoever you choose and wear whatever kit you want.

“There continues to be no requirement to wear Deliveroo branded kit while you work with us, but please make sure that whatever you wear while riding means that you are safe and visible to other road users.

“This new simple supplier agreement for riders makes it easier than ever to work with Deliveroo. It makes clear that our riders are able to log in to work with us whenever they want – allowing them to fit their work around their life rather than their life around their work.”

The changes have been made following criticism from the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, who advised that companies such as Deliveroo, Amazon and Uber, deprived workers of their rights with the wording of the contracts previously utilised.

The distribution of the new contracts also came less than a day after the leak of Labour’s draft manifesto, which contained a proposal for the ‘gig economy’ to assume workers are employees unless proven to the contrary.

Disability Discrimination: Adjustments for candidate with Asperger’s Syndrome

In the recent case of Government Legal Services v Brookes UKEAT/0302/16, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that requiring a job applicant with Asperger’s to take a multiple-choice test as part of the recruitment process, amounted to indirect discrimination.


The facts of the case were that the Government Legal Service (GLS) was recruiting lawyers in what the EAT later called “a fiendishly competitive recruitment process”. Applicants would be required to complete and pass a multiple choice ‘Situational Judgment Test’ (SJT), in order to be invited for interview.

Prior to commencing the test the Claimant, Ms Brookes, contacted the GLS and asked if adjustments could be made due to her Asperger’s – in particular, she asked if she could give her answers in a short narrative format rather than multiple choice so that she was not placed at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, the GLS advised her that an alternative test format was not available, however did state that additional time allowances might be permitted for tests taken at a later stage following the successful completion of the entry tests.  The Claimant therefore completed the SJT in its existing format and failed, albeit she scored just 2 points under the pass mark required.

Ms Brookes brought claims of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments at the ET, arguing that the multiple-choice format of the test placed her at a disadvantage in comparison to other candidates who did not suffer from Asperger’s.  She further claimed that there could be no justification for this, and no reasonable adjustments had been made to the process.

The decisions

Can workers receive payment for ‘sleeping’ at work?!

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered this question, more specifically whether workers are entitled to the national minimum wage when ‘on-call’ (or sleeping!) at work.

In the case of Focus Care Agency v Roberts, along with two other cases heard at the same time (Frudd v The Partington Group Ltd and Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake), Mrs Justice Simler (President of the EAT) assessed whether the Tribunals had been correct in deciding whether ‘sleep-in’ time should be considered ‘time work’ for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Regulations.

The EAT essentially concluded that it depends on the circumstances – although it disapproved of the approach taken where workers are deemed to be working simply by being present on the employer’s premises or even provided with accommodation when being on-call. The EAT decided that a multi-factorial approach was required, or in other words it depends on the facts of each case.

Employers will obviously be asking themselves at this point how you differentiate between cases where a worker is “working” throughout a sleep-in shift, being paid to be on the employer’s premises “just in case”, and those where a worker is “on call” and not deemed to be working the entire time? The EAT guidance provided is as follows:

Consider the employment contract in addition to the nature of the engagement and the work to be carried out. Does the contract provide for the period in question to be part of the employee’s working hours? Depending on the facts of the case it may be appropriate to consider whether the contract provides for pay to be calculated by reference to a shift or by reference to something else, and if so, to what; or to whether a period is directly specified during which work is to be done.
The fact that a worker has very little/nothing to do during certain hours does not mean that they are not working. A particular level of activity is not required. An individual can be working simply by being present even if they are simply required to deal with unexpected circumstances, but are otherwise entitled to sleep – this is the case even where the likelihood and frequency of an untoward matter arising is low.
No single factor is determinative and the weight each factor carries varies according to the facts of the particular case in question. Potential relevant factors in determining whether a person is working by being present include:

Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017

On 6th December 2016, the Government published the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017, which will require large private sector businesses to publish gender-based pay statistics each year.

These Regulations are likely to come into force (subject to parliamentary approval) on 6th April 2017, and will essentially require employers with 250 or more employees (within the private and voluntary sectors) to publish gender pay information on their company website on 5th April 2018 and thereafter on an annual basis. The information must remain on the website for not less than three years and they must also submit this information to the Government each year (a Government website will be created where the information will have to be published, however details concerning the Government website will likely be released nearer 5th April 2017.)

The above has raised a number of questions from employers such as which individuals need to be taken into account for these purposes, and, exactly what information do they need to provide?

Firstly, in terms of the personnel be taken into account, the Regulations state that such individuals must be undertaking work for the business in a personal capacity, therefore consultants as well as employees, must be accounted for.

Secondly, with regards exactly what information must be provided, the following guidelines are given:

the difference in mean pay between male and female employees
the difference in median pay between male and female employees
the difference in mean bonus pay between male and female employees
the difference in median bonus pay between male and female employees
the proportions of male and female employees who were paid bonus pay
the proportions of male and female employees in each quartile of their pay distribution

The information must be collated from data taken on 5th April every year, starting with 5th April 2017. The bonus information should be based on the preceding 12-month period, beginning with the 12 months leading up to 5th April 2017.

What happens if my business does not comply?

Taking recruitment a step too far!

Recruitment firm ‘Matching Models’ has recently come under fire for posting a job advertisement requesting that applicants are ‘attractive women’ only and have even specified what bra size the successful applicant should be.

The advertisement in question specified that applicants for a PA position should have “a classic look, brown long hair with b-c cup”. It went on to state that the job would be based in the countryside and that “a lady with no commitments would seem to match our client expectations”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) called the advertisement “appalling, unlawful and demeaning to women”. Women’s rights campaigners have also criticised the firm with Sam Smeathers (Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society) stating:

It is extraordinary that they are taking this approach and almost certainly falls foul of equality legislation. If we ever wonder why the battle for gender equality hasn’t been won, this is a timely reminder.

Matching Models is also recruiting a "sexy female driver" to drive a Porsche Cayenne two days a week for between £40,000 and £50,000-a-year for a Knightsbridge-based businessman and polo team owner.

Definition of a ‘worker’ in whistleblowing cases

Further to Susan Stafford’s article earlier this month in respect of whistleblowing, in the recent case of McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided clarification regarding when an agency worker can claim protection for whistleblowing against an end user using the extended definition of a workers under section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996.


The claimant in this matter is a nurse who was employed by an agency and placed to work at the respondent NHS Trust.  She brought a claim for protected disclosure detriments against the respondent under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). Under the ERA , only employees and workers are eligible to bring such claims against their employers. At first instance, the Employment Tribunal found that the claimant could not be categorised as such an employee/worker and her claim failed. The claimant therefore appealed to the EAT.


The claimant argued that she was employed by the Trust for the purposes of bringing a whistleblowing claim because she fell within the extended definition of “worker” at s.43K(1)(a) ERA, which states as follows:

“…an individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3) who—

(a) works or worked for a person in circumstances in which—

(i) he is or was introduced or supplied to do that work by a third person, and

(ii) the terms on which he is or was engaged to do the work are or were in practice substantially determined not by him but by the person for whom he works or worked, by the third person or by both of them…”


The respondent however presented the counter-argument that the Tribunal had been correct to find that it had not “substantially determined” the terms of the claimant’s engagement, as her terms were largely determined by her supplying agency work. The respondent further stated that as the claimant was undoubtedly a worker  in relation to the agency, she could not also be a worker of the Trust for the purposes of s43K(1)(a) ERA as that extension only applies to “an individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3)”.


The EAT held

subscription enquiries

This is the section in which to post information and enquiries about subscribing to CLB Employment Solutions. You can also raise an enquiry or apply online at

Existing subscribers should contact us using the usual contact methods or use the enquiry form in the subscription zone.