What effect on the labour market?

The BBC say as follows:

"Workers who fall sick during their annual leave are entitled to take corresponding paid leave at a later date, the EU's top court has ruled.
The European Court of Justice ruling is legally binding throughout the EU."

The article is here:


My question is what effect will this new ruling have in terms of the creation of new jobs in the UK?

I will be interested to know what people think (if anyone can be bothered to comment!)

@ LC
I think people will rip the hole out of it and it will cause problems for some smaller companies i.e cover and such.

It's prob not good i am voting UKIP from now on we should be back to making our own laws and rules,

Link does not appear to work, personally I cannot see how this will create jobs, not sure if you are suggesting it will though.
Most people get 4 weeks hols, assuming they take these holidays but subsequently claim they were sick then they get another 4 weeks to compensate, so it might create some short term cover posts (temp agency?) that said i know when this was first mooted it was agreed that the person still needs to provide proof of actually being ill. So going on holiday for 2 weeks to spain, coming back glowing with health with a fantsastic tan and claiming they had been in bed sick will not work unless supporting evidence is produced, that said I am sure some will find a way round it

This has always been the case under the Working Time Directive and isn't a new ruling at all. Falling sick while on paid annual leave immediately changes the employee's status to sick rather than on leave. However, the employee may choose to continue in their holiday status - it's up to them whether they declare themselves sick. If they do then the employer follows their existing sickness rules and the holiday the employee is taking basically goes back into their "leave not yet taken" figure. That is nothing new so I'd say it will have zero impact on the employment situation.

The EU said a while back that if an employee has not used their four week entitlement (we have an extra 1.6 weeks in the UK) then they must be allowed to carry forward the untaken leave. However, many employers have a contract with staff that says they must take their leave within a specified period with no carry forward. If these contracts were challenged in Europe then maybe they would be deemed illegal, I don't know. If you'd signed such a contract (which I'd hazard a guess millions have) would you really take your employer to court over it?

This whole issue is a moveable feast, always has been, and always will be. But this scenario is just one in the long list of joys that employing people entails. If an employer is managing staff and absences well it won't be an issue. There will always be the odd case which is a real nightmare, but overall the impact will be minimal.

It must be a slow news day on the BBC as they don't usually pick up on all of the similar cases going through the European courts.

A bit off the topic,after talking with my WP advisor and I stress this only his and some of his co-workers opinion,all the new apprentice programmes are fufilling the goals set out and will eventually result in an outcome (Wonga) but as a side effect the over 25 are suffering as a result..Why?..Entry level positions(some subsidised) are taken by apprentices at £2.80 ph there is no way that an employer would pay twice as much to take on somebody to do the same unskilled entry level position,apparently they are getting calls asking for apprentices..

Hi Stephw2w

Thanks for your reply. I started this thread because I'm curious about whether the ECJ ruling is likely to have any significant effect on the labour market.

I was unaware that this particular "issue" even existed until a couple of months ago, when the Daily Wail started moaning that Civil Servants who go sick whilst on annual leave are given extra annual leave to make up for it. The Wail implied that this practice 'must be' one of the perks of working for the Civil Service and/so I wondered how the Unions had been able to secure this alleged "perk?" (The Wail seems to have been running a campaign against the Civil Service, complaining about flexitime, Privilege Days and so forth.)

Then I saw the new story about the ECJ ruling the other day. The ruling suggests that the Cabinet Office's in-house lawyers have been interpreting the Working Time Directive all along, plainly. I wondered whether there would be a new furore about the new ECJ ruling and what effect, if any, it would be likely to have on the labour market in the UK, so I decided to start this thread on here in order to try to get some feedback about this particular topic.

Since then, I've read several comments by major employers and people like the CBI. They all seem to be saying that the "problem" has already been dealt with in as much as several people had already concluded that the WTD must be interpreted in the way that the ECJ ruling has now clarified. Which is what you have also said, in effect. So it doesn't appear that this new ruling is likely to have any significant impact in the UK.

I do still wonder whether the new ruling is likely to have any effect on small employers in the UK, though? Will we see an increase in the number of occasions where the employee is actually going to have to become a self-employed contractor, whose services will be retained on a purely casual, ad-hoc basis with no prior commitment to the number of hours each week, no obligation to provide either paid annual leave or paid sick leave, and so forth?

I guess we won't know whether the new ECJ ruling is having any real effects for another 3-6 months at least. If it does have an effect, the effect is likely to be demonstrated by a change in the hitherto habitual patterns of "employment," I suspect. If the patterns change then potential or prospective workers might well make a fuss but I suspect that any fuss will be communicated via the national Press etc.

Hi mkmky

I've seen several adverts locally for jobs that sound like ordinary, entry-level jobs where the old-fashioned method of hiring would be that the employer would advertise for an Office Junior, to be paid at the National Minimum Wage. Instead of that, the employers are claiming that these new vacancies are for "apprenticeships" paying a total of about £97.50 per week according to the adverts.

I suspect that it is actually nothing more than an excuse to hire cheap labour but to judge from the identities of the employers involved, I would guess that it is probably legitimate (if not desirable) to do it. God knows whether these strange-looking "apprenticeships" will have any real value for the youngsters who get involved with this group of jobs.


The link to the BBC article does work. I've used it myself, today. I right-clicked on the link and told it to open in a new window, which idea works perfectly.

Is something wrong with your mouse? (I suspect that mine is on the blink. The left-click button on the thing only seems to be working intermittently but I'm not sure whether that is down to the mouse or my right paw, so I'm waiting to see whether it will get any worse!)