In Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd EAT/0618/07, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to make no award of compensation where an employer had breached its obligations under the working time rules in respect of daily rest breaks.
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.
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.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering on-call working.
In MacCartney v Oversley House Management, the EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employee who was required to remain on call at or close to her place of work was 'working' even if her employer provided her with a home at her place of work.
A table setting out the rest breaks to which workers are entitled.
In Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that, for the purposes of reg. 21(c) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, it is the worker's activities, not the activities of the employer's business, that are relevant when considering the need for continuity of service or production.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to rest breaks and rest periods.