Rest breaks and rest periods
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has referred to the European Court of Justice the question of the extent to which employers can avoid giving workers daily rest periods and rest breaks because of the need for continuity of service or production.
The Court of Appeal has held that a lone security guard who could take a rest break during a 12-hour shift, but who had to be on call during that time and could start his rest break again if it was interrupted, was given "compensatory rest" under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Tori O'Neil, associate, and Judith Harris, legal director, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.
In The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd v Hughes EAT/0196/08, the EAT held that the entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 to a 20-minute rest break where the working day exceeds six hours is an entitlement to a single rest break and not a rest break for every six hours worked. Where an exception means that the right to a rest break does not apply, the employer must provide compensatory rest, which should be granted at a time when the worker would otherwise be working.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers working time.
In Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd EAT/0618/07, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to make no award of compensation where an employer had breached its obligations under the working time rules in respect of daily rest breaks.
On 7 September 2006, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that government guidelines accompanying the UK's Working Time Regulations are liable to render the right of workers to daily and weekly rest periods meaningless because they do not oblige employers to ensure that workers actually take the minimum rest periods.
In MacCartney v Oversley House Management, the EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employee who was required to remain on call at or close to her place of work was 'working' even if her employer provided her with a home at her place of work.
In Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that, for the purposes of reg. 21(c) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, it is the worker's activities, not the activities of the employer's business, that are relevant when considering the need for continuity of service or production.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: on-call hours; and statutory sick pay.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to rest breaks and rest periods.