header-logo header-logo

10 October 2014 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Golden slumbers?

Should employees be paid to sleep? Tom Walker reports

For several years a debate has been played out in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and higher courts as to when an employer can avoid paying an employee who is allowed to sleep on the premises. Typically this has involved managers at care homes and security guards. Recent case law suggests that employers might need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Working while asleep? 

Case law in this area must be seen in the light of two purposive ECJ cases involving doctors, SIMAP [2000] IRLR 845, [2001] All ER (EC) 609 and Jaeger [2003] IRLR 804, [2003] All ER (D) 72 (Sep). In both cases doctors were allowed to sleep and carry out leisure activities but had to remain on the premises. The European Court held this was working time. The doctors were not free to be at a place of their choosing and had to be available for work if required.

However Regulation 15 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 allows an employer

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll