Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shevlane v Mid-Kent College Of Higher & Further Education [1998] UKEAT 242_98_0603 (6 March 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/242_98_0603.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 242_98_603, [1998] UKEAT 242_98_0603
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MRS P TURNER OBE
MR E J SHEVLANE APPELLANT
MID-KENT COLLEGE OF HIGHER & FURTHER EDUCATION RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MR E J SHEVLANE APPELLANT IN PERSON |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This case raises an interesting and, so far as we are aware, novel claim based on the direct application of the working time Directive (93/104/EC) in relation to holiday pay.
The Appellant was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts by the Respondent College as a law lecturer until his dismissal by way of non-renewal in June 1997. He brought a claim, inter alia, for three weeks' holiday pay.
The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Ashford under the chairmanship of Mr David de Saxe on 27 November 1997. That Industrial Tribunal found as fact that following termination of his employment the Appellant did not receive any pay in lieu of holiday, that the calculation of his rate of pay for teaching sessions did not, contrary to the Respondent's evidence, include an element for holiday pay, that the Respondent was an emanation of the State and that accordingly the Working Time Directive was capable of being directly enforced, there being no domestic legislation, in particular the former Wages Act claim for unlawful deductions now found in s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which assisted him.
However, the Tribunal held that the particular provisions of the Directive on which the Appellant relied, Arts. 7 and 18(1)(b)(ii) were not sufficiently clear and precise to formulate an enforceable right. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
Having considered the relevant provisions of the Directive, we think it is at least arguable that until national legislation is passed during the three years' period commencing on 23 November 1996 a worker is entitled to three weeks' pay in lieu of holiday, or a proportion thereof, in the case of part-time workers, upon dismissal.
In these circumstances we shall allow the matter to proceed to a full appeal hearing. It will be listed for half a day, category B, there will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies of those skeletons to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.