ClickCease

Pay-as-you-go holiday pay (8%): when it is lawful and when it is not

The strict circumstances in which 8% pay-as-you-go holiday pay can lawfully be used for genuinely intermittent or irregular work and qualifying fixed-term employment.

The short answer

An employer cannot simply add 8% holiday pay to ordinary wages because a worker is labelled casual. The statutory conditions must be met and the holiday-pay component must be identifiable; otherwise annual-holiday entitlements can remain owing despite the extra 8% having been paid.


Pay-as-you-go holiday pay (the 8% approach) looks simple - and it is where the legal conditions are met. Where employers get this wrong, the usual outcome is expensive: the worker can still become entitled to 4 weeks annual holidays, and the employer may not be able to claw back the 8% already paid.

Employer checklist (Holidays Act section 28)

  • Is the worker genuinely fixed-term for less than 12 months, or so intermittent/irregular that providing annual holidays is impracticable?
  • Does the employment agreement clearly state holiday pay will be paid with wages (and at least 8%)?
  • Is the 8% shown as an identifiable component on payslips?
  • Are you tracking the engagement over time so casual work does not drift into regular ongoing employment?

Holiday pay for casual workers

For an employer to pay 8% pay-as-you-go holiday pay, for employment that continues beyond a duration of 12 months there are rules that apply, otherwise the employee could become entitled to four weeks holiday pay regardless of being paid 8% with regular pay.

If an employer incorrectly pays holiday pay with an employee's regular pay and the entitlement arises, an employer is typically unable to recover holiday pay already paid as overpayments. An employer who does not strictly comply with the conditions of the Holidays Act 2003 for use of section 28 does so at its own, costly, peril.

Pay-as-you-go holiday pay

When annual holiday pay may be paid with employee's pay:

  • The employee is either genuinely under a fixed-term employment agreement for less than 12 months; or works for the employer on a basis that is so intermittent or irregular that it is impracticable for the employer to provide the employee with 4 weeks' annual holidays.
  • The employee agrees in his or her employment agreement.
  • The annual holiday pay is paid as an identifiable component of the employee's pay
  • The annual holiday pay is paid at a rate not less than eight percent of the employee's gross earnings.

These conditions are all conjunctive which means that all of these conditions have to be met. If not and an employee becomes entitled to holidays after working a period of 12 months during their employment, then the employee can make a claim for holiday pay.

Read our full article

We write for the Deals on Wheels magazine. Read our full article:

Pay-As-You-Go Holiday Pay Download File: Pay-As-You-Go Holiday Pay

Common problems we see

  • "Casual" on paper, regular in reality: fixed roster patterns and ongoing work can defeat the section 28 justification.
  • No written agreement term: paying 8% is not enough without the agreement requirement.
  • Payslips not itemised: if the 8% is not clearly identified, you are exposed.
  • Fixed-term misuse: rolling fixed-terms can create additional risk beyond holiday pay.

If you are an employer and want a quick review of your holiday pay approach and employment agreement clauses, submit the case form and attach an anonymised payslip example and the employment agreement.
Employee Case Form

Read more
Holidays Act Casual employment
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Holidays Act, Casual Employment
Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett resigned from Polygon GY Developments after a course of conduct she said was designed to force her out, in a context also involving a claimed redundancy and unpaid Holidays Act entitlements. The ERA examined the reality of the resignation rather than only its formal label.

Fiona Scott v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 342 - casual bus driver found to be permanent and unjustifiably dismissed

Fiona Scott signed a casual agreement with Ritchies but in practice regularly drove urban bus routes. After disciplinary issues arose, the employer relied on the casual characterisation and later ended her work, raising questions about her real status and the justification for dismissal.

Junchen Xu v Aurora Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 320 - quantity surveyor wins unpaid wages, holiday pay and unjustified redundancy claim

Aurora Developments disputed when quantity surveyor Junchen Xu became an employee, saying his first month was only unpaid learning and observation, and later made him redundant without a proposal or consultation. He also claimed wages, incentives and holiday entitlements.

Sasha Lee v JNJ Management Limited and National Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 309 - redundancy unjustified, duties removed without consultation, wage arrears and holiday pay ordered

Sasha Lee performed management, HR and operational work across JNJ group businesses before duties were removed and her position was later declared redundant. She challenged both the unilateral reduction of responsibilities and the redundancy process, together with wage and holiday-pay issues.

Browse topics