Just wondering if anyone has changed their salary calculation for term time only workers in light of the Court of Appeal The Harpur Trust v Brazel judgment in August?

The judgment relates to irregular workers who are on permanent contacts - termed 'part-year workers'. It is my understanding that it is no longer possible to pro-rata 5.6 weeks holiday entitlement according to the number of weeks worked per year. Therefore, someone who works a few weeks per year but is contracted on a permanent basis, is entitled to pay based on a 12 week average of the weeks actually worked (not including school holiday closures) for 5.6 weeks 

So, as far as I interpret this someone who works term-time only i.e. 38 or 39 weeks per year should receive 5.6 weeks holiday entitlement (and pay) on top of this. This relates to the 5.6 weeks required by The Working Time Regulations only and not any additional contractual annual leave entitlement.  

The calculator used by the majority of our schools bases annual leave on a pro-rata equivalent of the weeks worked per year. So someone would receive their annual leave based on 38/39 weeks worked rather than the full year of 52. 

Legal advice I have read on the judgment states that employers should urgently review the contracts of permanent staff who work part of the year and make changes to them if they don't provide 5.6 weeks leave. 

Has anyone changed their term-time salary calculation because of this judgment or are you waiting to see if it will go to Supreme Court, or if anyone challenges you for it?

Happy to hear any views and/or see if anyone has received any other guidance on this matter?