Rest breaks and rest periods
In Pazur v Lexington Catering Services Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a kitchen porter had been subjected to a detriment when he was threatened with dismissal after he refused to return to work following a breach of his right to a rest break.
In Hallett v Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the Court of Appeal held that an NHS trust's use of commercial software to monitor rest breaks results in a breach of junior doctors' terms and conditions of service.
In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford, the Court of Appeal held that, under reg.24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833), a compensatory rest period need not consist of an uninterrupted 20 minutes provided that it has the same value in terms of contributing to the worker's wellbeing.
In Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that compensation for injury to feelings is not available in a claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) for a failure to provide 20-minute rest breaks..
In this Portuguese case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that the weekly rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any day during each seven-day period, and not necessarily the day following six consecutive working days.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employer has a proactive duty to ensure a worker's entitlement to take a rest break, and that entitlement will be "refused" if the employer puts into place working arrangements that fail to allow the taking of the required rest break.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered if a tribunal can award compensation to an employee for injury to feelings where the employer fails to provide 20-minute rest breaks in breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
David Malamatenios is partner, Linda Quinn, Colin Makin and Krishna Santra are senior associates, and Dominic Speedie is an associate at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
Sinead Jones is an associate, and Phil Dupres and Beckie Howlett are trainee solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the "refusal" or "proposed refusal" of a worker to accept his or her employer's contravention (or proposed contravention) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) must be communicated in advance to the employer.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to rest breaks and rest periods.
XpertHR® is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Copyright © 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions
© 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions.