header-logo header-logo

Sleep-in carers lose minimum wage case

13 July 2018
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Care workers are not entitled to the minimum wage for all the time they are on a ‘sleep-in’ shift, the Court of Appeal has held in a decision of major significance to the care sector.

In Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2018] EWCA Civ 1641, the charity Mencap successfully argued against an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling last April to the effect that overnight care workers could claim six years’ backpay at national minimum wage (NMW) level.

James Davies, partner at Simons Muirhead & Burton, who acted for Mencap, said: ‘The Court of Appeal in Mencap held that on a straightforward reading of the Regulations, workers on sleep-in shifts were only entitled to have their hours counted for NMW purposes when they were (and were required to be) awake for the purpose of performing some specific activity.

‘This judgment will have an enormous impact on the care sector. The potential historic liability, through a gap in funding—estimated in the hundreds of millions of pounds across the sector—threatened some providers’ future viability had they been obliged to pay their staff the NMW for the whole of sleep-in shifts at residential homes and care homes.’

However, Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary, said: ‘This judgment is a mistake, but let’s be clear where the fault lies.

‘Social care is in crisis, and this situation wouldn’t have arisen if the government had put enough money into the system and enforced minimum wage laws properly. Sleep-in shifts involve significant caring responsibilities, often for very vulnerable people.

‘With too few staff on at night, most care workers are often on their feet all shift, only grabbing a few minutes sleep if they can. That’s why it’s such a disgrace that workers have been paid a pittance for sleep-ins—with some getting just £30 for a ten-hour shift.’

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Projects and infrastructure team appoints partner in Edinburgh

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Partner joins residential development team in Reading

DWF—Don Brown

DWF—Don Brown

Banking and finance team expands with strategic partner hire

NEWS
David Bailey-Vella of Davis Woolfe and chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers explores the new costs budgeting light pilot scheme in this week's NLJ
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
Writing in NLJ this week, Nick Brett and Vicky Lankester of Brett Wilson dissect the chronic failures of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in meeting disclosure obligations. From the Post Office scandal to the collapsed trial of Liam Allan, they highlight how systemic neglect has led to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice
back-to-top-scroll