header-logo header-logo

Sleeping on the job

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll