header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Sleeping on the job

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll