header-logo header-logo

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Sleeping on the job

Should workers be paid to sleep? David Regan reports

In the recent case of Burrow Down Support Services v Rossiter EAT/0592/07 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has required payment of the minimum wage to “on call” workers able to sleep at work, despite the apparently express provision of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/584) to the contrary. The importation of European law may further widen the requirement to pay workers to sleep.

The Minimum Wage Regulations include deeming provisions which seem on their face to exempt employers from having to pay the minimum wage to workers sleeping in accommodation provided at work. However, the courts have applied a wide construction to the regulations, drawing on European law relating to the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833). Workers permitted to sleep at work are increasingly being required to be paid the national minimum wage. The ramifications of this for residential and care homes, hotels, “on call” emergency workers, and possibly even homeworkers are significant.

Reg 15 of the Minimum Wage Regulations was amended in

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
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll