Supreme Court decision on commission payments and holiday pay

Employment Law
Nov 19 2021

The recent Supreme Court decision in Tourism Holdings Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2021] NZSC 157 (“Tourism Holdings”) held that commissions can form part of an employee’s ordinary weekly pay for the purposes of calculating holiday pay if they are made substantively regularly and temporally regularly.

Holidays Act 2003
Under the Holidays Act 2003 (the “Act”) holiday pay must be at a rate based on the greater of two calculations: either the employee’s “ordinary weekly pay” as at the beginning of the annual holiday (s21(2)(a)(i) of the Act), or the employee’s average weekly earnings for the twelve months immediately before the annual holiday (s21(2)(a)(i) of the Act).

Commission is included in an employee’s “ordinary weekly pay” where it is a regular part of that pay. However, the Act recognises that some employees may not have an ordinary working week. The Act therefore provides an alternative way of calculating pay in section 8(2) of the Act.

The formula is as follows: (A-B)÷C where:

A= the employee’s gross earnings for either

  • the four calendar weeks before the end of the pay period immediately before the calculation is made; or
  • if the employee’s normal pay period is longer than 4 weeks, the pay period immediately before the calculation is made.

B= The total amount of payments described in s8(1)(c)(i) to (iii) which includes productivity or incentive based payments and commission that are not a regular part of the employee’s pay.

C= four (as in, to average the earnings in the four weeks considered).

The question for the Supreme Court in Tourism Holdings was what constitutes “regular” for the purposes of deciphering whether commission forms a “regular part of the employee’s pay”.

Tourism Holdings Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Tourism Holdings operates guided bus tours throughout New Zealand as part of their brand of offering tourists a “kiwi experience”. To do so, it employs “driver guides” who, in addition to their general duties, sell tourist activities through third party operators for which they are paid commission. Drivers only receive commission payments once a tour has finished and after they have completed certain administrative procedures required by Tourism Holdings. As drivers did not have a typical working week, the alternative calculation in s8(2) applies.

The Employment Court agreed with Tourism Holdings’ position that that driver guides’ commissions are to be deducted from the holiday pay calculation because they are not a regular part of the employee’s pay, and thus they fall within s8(1)(c)(i)-(iii) and part (b) of the equation. This was because the commission does not form part of the drivers’ pay for an ordinary working week, as was not earnt by a driver until the reconciliation process was completed. They effectively construed “not a regular part of the employee’s pay” as “not a regular part of the employee’s pay for an ordinary working week”.

However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court overturned this decision. Both Courts emphasised that the purpose of the alternative calculation is to provide for situations where an employee may not have an ordinary working week. They held that, irrespective of whether commission forms part of an ordinary working week, it must be included when calculating ordinary weekly pay under s8(2) if it is a “regular” part of the employee’s pay. Thus, while commission payment may be insufficiently regular to effect the calculation of pay for an “ordinary working week” under s8(1)(a), it may be sufficiently regular to be material to a calculation of earnings over a four week period under s8(2)(a). Whether it is “regular” is to be construed in relation to the time period under consideration- four weeks for s8(2)(a), and one for s8(1)(a).

The Court of Appeal found that regularity can be in two ways: substantive regularity or temporal regularity. The Supreme Court clarified that both are required for commission to be considered in holiday pay calculation:

  • Substantively regular, being made systematically and according to rules; and
  • Temporally regular, being made uniformly in time and manner.

It was held that the bus drivers’ commission was regular.

Relevance for Employers
The decision confirmed that incentive based payments, including commission, forms a “regular part of the employee’s pay” under the Act if they are made substantively regularly and temporally regularly.

The significance of this decision is that the holiday pay rate calculated under s8(2) may be greater than if it was calculated under s21(2)(b)(ii) (ie. the employee’s average weekly earnings for the 12 months immediately before the end of the last pay period before the annual holiday). This is only material when commission earnt in the four week period referenced in s8(2) is greater, as a component of ordinary weekly pay, than the 1/52 portion used to calculate “average weekly earnings” under s21(2)(b)(ii).

There was some concern from Tourism Holdings that employees may strategically time their annual holiday so as to maximise their holiday pay by taking leave after a particularly lucrative four weeks. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed this as a concern and also held that such a result would not be inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of the Act.

If you would like more information or advice on any relevant calculations for payment for holidays and your obligations as an employer, please do not hesitate to contact us.

You may also like ...
Swearing in the workplace – can I be dismissed for swearing at work?
Swearing? We are all guilty of doing it to some extent, but what about in the workplace? Is it acceptable and if so, to what degree? Can your employer discipline you for an outrage of expletives? In some circumstances and in certain workplaces, dismissal may be wholly warranted, while in others, it may not, notwithstanding that it is the same conduct in question. Confused? Context is key alongside a myriad of factors to be taken into consideration. Ultimately it will come down to what is fair and the workplace culture. The issue of “fairness” is addressed in the Employment Relations Act 2000 which tells parties whether a dismissal will be fair or not. For instance, in the case of Waihape v AFFCO New Zealand Limited [2017] NZERA 13 several mitigating factors were taken into consideration, including the context of the situation, the nature of the workplace and the relationship between the parties involved. In Waihape, it was determined that given the nature of the workplace, several individuals regularly swore in their day-to-day banter and an employer would struggle to justify taking action for a staff member using bad language in those circumstances. The evidence showed that management failed to crack down on similar offensive language in the workplace. The Authority quoting from precedent said: “It is well established that an employer will fail to justify a dismissal where communications do not appear to be greatly out of character with others apparently condoned by management in the workplace.” Overall, case law suggests that if an employer wishes for certain standards to be upheld, it will need to ensure there are policies in place to make employees aware that swearing is unacceptable. Furthermore, employers will need to demonstrate that it does not tolerate swearing in the workplace by enforcing the policy when it is breached. It is both best practice and prudent for employers to ensure that the expected and acceptable standards of behaviour are addressed and imbedded into any training and induction processes. Above all else, it is imperative that employers do not single out an individual for the use of course language while letting other employees get away with the same. The key takeaway is, like with all disciplinary matters, a fair procedure must be followed. An employer will need to establish the facts and review any offensive language in the context of the circumstances alongside the company’s relevant policies. Before taking disciplinary action, an employer will need to carefully consider whether a verbal warning or written warning is more appropriate. Dismissal would only be justifiable if the employee’s conduct warrants gross misconduct and summary dismissal. Whether you are considering taking action against an employee or you are an employee facing disciplinary action yourself, we recommend getting cogent advice first. Speak to our team today.  
Read more
Restructuring in the workplace – What employers need to know
With the economy continuing on its downward slide, you will not be alone in giving thought to potential cost cutting measures, including reducing your labour costs. Restructuring is usually a last resort for employers and is only a step that tends to be taken when there seem to be no other viable options for reducing costs quickly.  While the impact on employees is immense, it is clear that a restructure process can be just as stressful and fraught for an employer.  That is why, sometimes, employers can get things wrong and may find themselves at the centre of a personal grievance, which can result in greater stress, cost and uncertainty. A restructuring needs to be substantively justified, and procedurally correct.  If you do not meet both of these requirements, there is a risk that if an employee were to make a claim against you, it could be upheld. What is Substantive Justification? It is likely that during recessionary times, such as we are in now, the substantive reasons for a restructure will be fairly obvious to your employees.  However, you will still need to justify this by providing evidence in support.  This may include pointing to reduced sales figures or forecasts, showing increased costs (i.e. materials, rent, insurance), or any other information that you are willing to share that goes toward justifying the proposal to restructure. What is the Correct Procedure? The procedure for restructuring is usually where an employer can get tripped up.  To start, you need to remember that you should not pre-determine that a restructure is inevitable.  You have a good faith obligation to your employees to consult with them before any decisions that may affect their employment are made.  It may be that during consultation, you are able to see a way forward that means a restructure is not required, or at least not to the extent that you had originally envisaged. Once you have substantive justification, you need to advise your employees that you are proposing a restructure and give them adequate information including what the restructure would entail, how it would impact them, and how you wish to consult with them about it. You will then move to the consultation stage and be ready to provide further information or answer any questions the employees may have.  Once you have finished consultation, you will need to advise the employees of your proposed decision.  Your employees should then be given an opportunity to comment on or ask further questions about the proposed decision.  It is not until they have been given this opportunity that you should procced to confirm your decision. The exact process you follow will depend on factors such as the size of your workforce, the number of roles that may be impacted, the typical method of communication with employees, the specific terms of your employment agreements, and the location of your employees. Having guided employers through numerous restructures, the one point we want you to keep in mind is that getting your restructure right is by far more preferable than having to deal with the consequences (and potential costs) of getting it wrong.  We can provide specific advice and guidance on restructuring and all other employment related issues, so please contact our employment law team at any time for further information.
Read more
Holidays Act – could change finally be on the horizon?
Earlier this week the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber, reiterating her priorities following the conclusion of the Government’s 100-day plan in which Fair Pay Agreements were abolished, and the availability of 90 day trial periods extended to all new employees. The Minister has confirmed that delivering changes to the Holidays Act (“Act”) is one of her top priorities, which is likely to be welcome news to both employers and employees. Compliance with the Act has been difficult and costly for employers and payroll providers. The Labour Government put together a taskforce in 2018 to address the many issues being experienced by employers when calculating leave and holiday entitlements. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, all of which were accepted (for further details on these changes see our previous article here). A draft Leave Entitlements Bill was prepared, however was not introduced prior to last year’s election. The overarching issue with the Act is that there are multiple ways to calculate an employee’s holiday pay, and the Act has struggled to keep up with working arrangements outside of a normal five day a week salaried employee. Payments such as bonuses, commission, or if an employee works variable hours mean that the calculations are not straight forward and are often done incorrectly. The changes proposed were an attempt to simplify these calculations. The Minister has now confirmed that the changes recommended by the taskforce and the draft Bill will not be “simply rubberstamped” and will be subject to scrutiny as well as consultation with key stakeholders. She went on to say “if the policy is difficult to draft, chances are businesses would have a tough time implementing it too”. This indicates a major reset of the Act, and the changes which we had expected, could be on the way. Other indicated changes to employment law include a change to the rules surrounding contractors (with the Court of Appeal due to hear the Uber case this month (see here for our previous advice regarding this), we are likely to also have further developments in this area from the Courts later in the year) and changes to personal grievances. The Minister has asked for advice on whether an income threshold for raising a personal grievance can be set and removing eligibility for any remedies when an employee is at fault. The Minister has been very clear that she would like to receive feedback from the stakeholders who will eventually have to work with the Act and it is important that businesses use this opportunity to have a say on the Act. The majority of employers have struggled to achieve strict compliance with the Act due to its many complexities. Putting forward issues which regularly impact your business will ensure these can be given consideration. Our team will be closely monitoring this and will provide specific information on how feedback can be given when this information is available. If you require assistance with your current obligations under the Act, or would like to discuss providing feedback then please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist employment law team.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top