The Claimant argued that he been underpaid holiday pay. The ET decided that the factor for dividing the year to calculate holiday pay was the number of working days. The Respondent had contended it should have concluded that the correct divisor was the number of calendar days. The ET considered that it did not have the relevant evidence to reach a conclusion as to whether the Claimant had in fact been underpaid by the respondent’s method of calculation and postponed the decision on remedy to a further hearing. The Claimant contended that this appeal was premature; the ET had not reached its conclusions on the correct amount of holiday pay and as such there was no purpose to the appeal.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The Claimant was correct that this appeal was premature. In any calculation there is a multiplier and a multiplicand. Here the ET had selected the multiplier (for example, the number of weeks or hours) but not the multiplicand (i.e. the weekly or hourly amount). It is not until the multiplicand is chosen that the correct figure can be identified as being the wages for holiday pay appropriate to be paid and whether there had been any deduction.