header-logo header-logo

01 February 2007 / Tess Gill
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

No limits?

Tess Gill considers the effects of recent rulings
on call-out time in the working week

The limits on the working week in the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC (the Directive), previously Directive 93/104/EC, have always been controversial; especially with the UK government in favour of an individual opt-out of the maximum 48-hour working limit, which has been consistently opposed by trade unions.

Opting out

The Directive is implemented domestically by the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) (the regulations), as amended. The main provisions follow those of the Directive (see box, p 158). The opt-out favoured by the government refers to Art 22 of the Directive (see reg 4) which permits an employer to require a worker to work more than 48 hours for each seven day period over the reference period of 17 weeks—or over 52 weeks through a collective or workplace agreement—though only if the employer has first obtained the worker’s agreement.

The UK is the only member state to make wide use of the individual opt-out. In other member states companies’ use of

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll