header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 October 2014 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Golden slumbers?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll