All items: Working-hours limits

• expand

  Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou EAT/0293/11 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Working time: Employer entitled to restrict overtime in respect of non-opted-out employees

    Date:

    17 July 2012

    In Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou EAT/0293/11, the EAT held that an employer's refusal to allow an employee who had not opted out of the 48-hour week to work overtime on rest days did not give rise to unlawful detriment.

  • Overtime refusal for not opting out of 48-hour working week not a detriment

    Date:

    30 January 2012

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a worker who had not opted out of the 48-hour working week did not suffer detrimental treatment when his employer refused him the opportunity to work voluntary overtime on a rest day. 

• expand

  Barber and others v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd [1999] IRLR 308 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Maximum 48-hour week is a statutorily implied term in all employment contracts

    Date:

    1 April 1999

    In making the Working Time Regulations, Parliament intended that all contracts of employment must be read so as to provide that an employee should work no more than an average of 48 hours per week during any 17-week reference period, holds the High Court in Barber and others v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd.

• expand

  Clamp v Aerial Systems EAT/0266/04 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Working time: No detriment following withdrawal from opt-out

    Date:

    28 January 2005

    In Clamp v Aerial Systems, the EAT holds that, in a case where the applicant withdrew his consent to opt out of the maximum 48-hour week set by the Working Time Regulations 1998, the applicant had not suffered a detriment within the meaning of s.45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  • Case round-up: implications of deciding no longer to opt out of the 48-hour week

    Date:

    30 November 2004

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering the implications of deciding no longer to opt out of the 48-hour week.

• expand

  Director of Public Prosecutions v Guy [1998] RTR 82 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Tachograph driver on way home was "working"

    Date:

    1 April 1998

    In the Director of Public Prosecutions v Guy, the High Court rules that there should be no extension of the permitted driving hours for a tachograph-fitted vehicle.

• expand

  Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL and another [2015] IRLR 935 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Working time: Travel between home and first and last customer appointments is working time

    Date:

    31 January 2016

    In Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL and another [2015] IRLR 935 ECJ, the ECJ held that, for peripatetic workers who travel directly to customer addresses from home and who travel home directly from customer addresses at the end of the working day, the time spent travelling on those first and last journeys of the day is working time within the meaning of art.2 of the Working Time Directive.

  • Travelling time for workers with no usual place of work counts as working time

    Date:

    10 September 2015

    The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that where a worker has no usual place of work, time spent travelling from and to home for the first and last customer visits of the day, should be counted as working time.

• expand

  Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] IRLR 118 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Doctors' hours under attack

    Date:

    8 March 1991

    An employer's right to require overtime from an employee who is under a contractual obligation to be "on call" for a specified number of hours in excess of his basic working week, is subject to the employer's implied duty to take reasonable care not to injure its employee's health, holds the Court of Appeal in Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority.

• expand

  King v Gurso Plant & Linings Ltd ET/1301878/12 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Worker automatically unfairly dismissed for refusing to work more than 48 hours per week

    Date:

    12 September 2012

    In this case, the employment tribunal found that a worker, who had refused to work more than 48 hours per week, was automatically unfairly dismissed by his employer.

• expand

  McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd [2007] IRLR 14 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd

    Date:

    10 October 2006

    In McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd [2007] 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.

• expand

  Pfeiffer and others v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV [2005] IRLR 137 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • European Union: ECJ case law round-up

    Date:

    1 March 2005

    In our latest round-up of cases from the European Court of Justice, we look at cases on equal pay, maternity leave and equal treatment, the variation of terms relating to early retirement following a transfer of an undertaking, working time and European Works Councils.

  • Working time: Direct effect of and exclusions from 48-hour week

    Date:

    11 February 2005

    In Pfeiffer and others v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV, the European Court of Justice held that the exclusion of 'road transport' from the provisions of the Working Time Directive did not cover emergency workers, even when they used a road vehicle and accompanied patients on their journeys to hospital.

• expand

  Power and another v CDS Superstores International Ltd ET/2104109/10 & ET/2104110/10 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employees unfairly dismissed for asserting statutory rights

    Date:

    17 February 2011

    Employees with less than one year's service can still claim unfair dismissal in certain circumstances, as the employer in this case found to its cost.