header-logo header-logo

Golden slumbers?

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

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

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll