In First Hampshire & Dorset Ltd v Feist and others EAT/0510/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that bus drivers are not entitled to a rigid 11 hours' rest in each 24-hour period, but instead should be given regular but undefined rest periods so as to prevent them injuring themselves or others through fatigue.
In McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd  IRLR 14 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right when he refused to work extra hours that would have been a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On 7 September 2006, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that government guidelines accompanying the UK's Working Time Regulations are liable to render the right of workers to daily and weekly rest periods meaningless because they do not oblige employers to ensure that workers actually take the minimum rest periods.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering working time.
In Anderson v Jarvis Hotels EATS/0062/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was contractually entitled to be paid for periods when he was required to sleep on the employer's premises, even though he rarely had to carry out any work during these periods.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to working time.