header-logo header-logo

10 August 2012
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Case law , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment

Bridgeman v Associated British Ports UKEAT/0425/11/JOJ, [2012] All ER (D) 18 (Aug)

It was necessary for the employment tribunal to ask, in the context of applying reg 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) whether there were objective reasons why the working arrangements could not be arranged so as to secure a full break.

Therefore, objective reasons were required to justify a failure to provide the employee with his full rest break. That applied equally to rest periods under reg 10 so that objective reasons for not giving rest periods under reg 10 and rest breaks under reg 12 had to be separately considered. That would be in accordance with what was the correct interpretation of Art 17 of Council Directive (EC) 2003/88.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll