The idea proposed by Amazon to offer contracts that revolve around term-time working is an interesting one. At first glance it can seem generous, allowing a degree of flexibility for workers who find school holidays a difficult time to balance work and childcare.
However, Amazon is not being totally altruistic. It needs to solve a recruitment problem and offering a solution that appears responsive to issues that many individuals face is no bad thing. Cynical commentators will want to look behind the motivation of Amazon, which has become a punchbag for those who are concerned about working conditions in the growing remote retail industry.
Putting aside such concerns for a moment, we need to look at the issue of term-time working as a concept outside of the education sector. The employer attracts a wider pool of recruits and individuals can get the chance to work when they might not otherwise feel they are able. With flexibility comes a new set of problems, as it does have its limits. Those limits will be most noticeable when issues arise during term-time when the work is concentrated. Children are not the most predictable of beings and there will be occasions where they need care and attention while school is in session.
With the paid holiday time for the worker already pre-determined, this means they must request unpaid leave for any term-time absences. This is a logical consequence of the arrangement in play but will be a key concern for the employee. If it is possible for them to arrange childcare, rather than take time off, that care will most likely be at a cost greater than the earnings warehouse working can bring. The loss will still be present.
There is nothing wrong with Amazon, or any other employer, insisting that absences in term-time should be unpaid when the paid holiday provision is equivalent to, or greater than, the statutory minimum.
What will also be interesting is how the arrangements for term-time working will be framed. The Supreme Court case of Harpur Trust v Brazel has had all sorts of implications for those working irregular patterns within a term-time only context. The result can lead to a perception of improved entitlement to paid holiday, as a balancing exercise is carried out to fit the square peg of reality into the round of hole of legislation.
As irregular working can be a key element for those looking for flexibility, this is not something that can be easily ignored. Flexibility provides many a benefit but working out its limits in the context of a legal framework not necessarily designed for a flexible work environment can create many a headache.
Martin Williams is head of employment and a partner at Mayo Wynne Baxter