Working Time – Rest Breaks
EAT Working Time Regulations 1998 – rest breaks – Regulations 12(1) and 30(1) – Prior to July 2012, the Claimant had an eight and a half hour working day, paid for eight hours, with the intention that he take a half hour unpaid lunch break (although the nature of his work meant that this could be difficult to fit into the working day). On 16 July 2012, the Respondent emailed the Claimant expressing its expectation (at best) or instruction (at worst) that he was to work straight through for eight hours, without the half hour break, but then to leave earlier than he would have done before. In July 2014, the Claimant lodged a grievance complaining that he had been forced to work without a break, which had contributed to a decline in his health.
Determining the Claimant’s complaint that he had been denied his entitlement to a 20 minute uninterrupted rest break, as provided by Regulation 12(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘the WTR’), the ET considered it was required to follow the approach laid down by the EAT in Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd [2008] IRLR 602, which had held that there had to be an actual refusal of a request to exercise the right to a rest break in order to give rise to a legal liability under the WTR. Adopting that approach, the ET concluded:
(1) Prior to July 2012, the Claimant’s work arrangements had allowed for a half hour break, consistent with his entitlement under Regulation 12(1). Even if it was often difficult to take that break, that did not mean the Respondent had ‘refused’ to permit the Claimant to exercise his right.
(2) By its email of 16 July 2012, the Respondent had (at best) stated its expectation or (at worst) instructed the Claimant, that he should work through for eight hours without a break. Until his grievance, however, the Claimant had not actually made a request for a break. Although his grievance had included such a request, there was no evidence – at least by the time of the ET claim – that the Respondent had in fact refused it.
The claim was therefore dismissed. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal
There were conflicting decisions of the EAT on the approach to be taken to rights to rest under the WTR. As the WTR had been introduced to implement the Working Time Directive (‘the WTD’), it was appropriate to consider the language and purpose of the WTD, as explained by the Court of Justice in Commission v UK C-484/04 [2006] IRLR 888. Adopting that approach, it was clear that the construction of the WTR allowed by the EAT in Scottish Ambulance Service v Truslove UKEATS/0028/11 was to be preferred to that in Miles. As the ET’s reasoning followed the approach laid down in Miles, the appeal would be allowed and the case remitted for determination of the issues in the light of this Judgment.
Eady QC HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0130 – 16 – 1611
Bailii
Working Time Regulations 1998 12(1) 30(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 June 2021; Ref: scu.571429