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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll