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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll