Exploring UK employee rights, forced holiday usage, and whether business closures should come from your annual leave allowance.
In the UK, bank holidays like Christmas, Easter, and New Year have long been seen as a time for rest and celebration — a national pause from work. Yet, many employees are now finding that instead of enjoying these days as bonus paid time off, they’re being asked (or required) to use their statutory holiday allowance just to get paid when the business is closed. This raises a serious question: Is it fair or even lawful to force employees to use their annual leave when they have no choice but to stay home?
The Law: What Are Employees Entitled To?
Under the UK’s Working Time Regulations 1998, full-time employees are entitled to a minimum of 28 days’ paid annual leave per year, which can include bank holidays if stated in their employment contract. However, there is no legal right to be paid extra for working on bank holidays — or to receive them as separate, additional leave.
This means your employer can:
- Include bank holidays as part of your 28-day statutory holiday entitlement.
- Require you to use your annual leave during periods of business closure — as long as proper notice is given.
What Counts as “Proper Notice”?
If an employer wants to require employees to take annual leave during a specific period (e.g., over Christmas shutdown), they must give at least twice as many days’ notice as the number of days the employee is being asked to take. For example, for 5 days of forced leave, 10 days’ notice is required.
If this hasn’t been followed, the employer may be in breach of employment law.
Is It Fair to Deduct Holiday for Bank Holidays or Closures?
That’s a moral and contractual question. Many workers feel cheated when their annual leave — which they may prefer to use during summer or school holidays — is used up simply because their office closes at Christmas. It’s even more frustrating when bank holidays are treated like any other day in the annual leave pot, with no additional pay or day-in-lieu offered.
Historically, it was common for employees, particularly in unionised industries or public sectors, to receive enhanced pay (often double or triple time) for working over bank holidays. Others were granted those days off on top of their regular holiday entitlement.
Over time, many private companies have rolled back those perks, especially since employment rights and pay enhancements are now governed less by tradition and more by the individual employment contract. Cost-saving measures and changes in company policy have led to the phasing out of bank holiday bonuses in many sectors.
Employee Rights & Red Flags
While employers have some discretion, employees should not be coerced into using their statutory holidays unfairly or without proper notice.
Workers should review:
- Their employment contract (does it state whether bank holidays are included or additional?)
- Their staff handbook or HR policies.
- Whether they are receiving proper notice or clear justification for forced leave periods.
If you’re being pressured to use holidays without adequate notice or being penalised for not agreeing to it, you may have grounds to raise a grievance or seek advice from ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service).
Contracts Under Duress: Are You Really Free to Say No?
When fear of penalties forces you to sign on the dotted line — from Universal Credit to employment contracts, where is the choice, and where is the justice?
Contracts are meant to represent mutual agreement — a voluntary meeting of minds between two parties. But what happens when the person signing has no real choice? Whether it’s a Universal Credit “claimant commitment” or a job offer that hinges on immediate compliance, people are too often placed in impossible positions: sign here, or suffer the consequences. This is where the line between consent and coercion begins to blur.
What Is Duress in Contract Law?
In contract law, “duress” refers to unlawful pressure exerted on a party to force them into a contract. If someone is coerced, threatened, or intimidated into signing, the contract may be considered voidable. The classic legal test is whether one party’s free will was overridden.
However, in real life — especially when dealing with state agencies like the DWP or when applying for much-needed employment — the pressure doesn’t always come with obvious threats. The fear of not being paid, losing a job opportunity, or facing sanctions can be just as powerful.
Universal Credit: Consent or Coercion?
To receive Universal Credit, claimants must accept a Claimant Commitment — a contract-like agreement outlining their responsibilities, such as job search hours, reporting duties, or work placements. The catch? If you refuse to sign, you don’t get paid.
This puts vulnerable people in an impossible situation. You must agree to conditions you may not fully understand, physically be able to meet, or even agree with — or you risk being left with no income. That’s not consent. That’s coercion.
There is no real negotiation, no allowance for personal circumstances unless you aggressively fight to be heard. And for many people who are disabled, ill, caring for loved ones, or simply overwhelmed, that battle is too much.
Employment Contracts: “Sign This or You Don’t Get the Job”
Similarly, many job contracts are presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. You’ve been offered a role — perhaps after a long job search — but when the contract arrives, it’s full of clauses you’re uncomfortable with: zero-hour terms, no sick pay, excessive probation conditions, or non-compete clauses.
But if you hesitate or request changes, the offer may be withdrawn.
This “pre-contractual duress” effectively removes any real chance to negotiate, especially for those in desperate need of employment. The risk of losing the job before even starting silences many people into signing contracts they feel trapped in from day one.
The Case for Reform: Contracts Should Be Fair, Not Forced
Contracts should reflect freely given consent, not survival-based compliance. There should be mandatory clauses in both employment and social welfare contracts that state:
“The individual shall not be penalised, disadvantaged, or excluded from financial support or job opportunities if they wish to amend or refuse the contract, and shall be offered a fair chance to renegotiate terms or seek advice.”
Such a clause would empower individuals to protect their rights, question unfair conditions, and seek support without fear of punishment. It would also recognise that true consent can only exist where freedom of choice is present.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s time we stop pretending that everyone who signs a contract has done so willingly. Whether you’re dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions or a private employer, coercive contracts are a growing injustice — one that affects the most vulnerable the most.
Legislative reform, greater awareness, and challenging unethical practices must be part of the solution. Until then, many people will continue signing contracts not because they agree — but because they’re too afraid not to.
Final Thought
The erosion of paid time off for national holidays like Christmas or Easter reflects a growing tension between employer flexibility and employee well-being. While technically legal under many contracts, the question remains: is it ethical to make employees fund a business closure with their personal leave?
At a time when work-life balance and mental health are under the spotlight, perhaps it’s time for a cultural — and contractual — rethink.
No Win No Fee Lawyers
Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.
