ClickCease

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

Strict conditions must be met for an employer to pay an employee pay-as-you-go holiday pay in casual employment and fixed-term employment placements that exceed 12 months.


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 articles and guides.
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 working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

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

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

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

Fiona Scott was employed by Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited on a casual agreement, but the ERA found the real nature of the relationship had evolved into permanent employment. After a route deviation for a toilet break, two scheduled shifts were removed and no further shifts were offered. The ERA found this amounted to unjustified dismissal and ordered $10,000 compensation and $12,870 gross lost wages...

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

Junchen Xu worked for Aurora Developments Limited as a project quantity surveyor. The ERA found he was an employee from 1 March 2021, despite the employer saying the first month was only learning and observation. The ERA also found his redundancy dismissal was unjustified because ADL did not consult, did not provide a proposal, and did not explain the business reasons before ending his employment.

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 worked as personal assistant to the sole director of the JNJ Group, but her actual role extended across a range of group businesses. The ERA found she was employed by JNJ Management Limited, not National Holdings Limited, but that JNJ had unjustifiably disadvantaged her by removing key duties without consultation and unjustifiably dismissed her by redundancy. JNJ was ordered to pay $105,342.25 gross wage arrears, $34,373.75 gross annual holiday pay, $17,500 compensation, and 13 weeks' lost wages...

Browse topics