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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll