header-logo header-logo

No limits?

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

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 the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll