Associated British Ports v Bridgeman: EAT 4 Apr 2012

EAT Working Time Regulations 1998 – Regulation 21
This is a test case which involves the hours that pilots can be expected to work on the River Humber. The Employment Tribunal found that Associated British Ports, the Appellant, could not comply with the provisions as to rest breaks in Regulation 12 and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the derogation in Regulation 21. However in respect of Regulation 10 the ET found that the Appellant could comply with the provisions as to daily rest and was not therefore entitled to the benefit of the derogation. The Appellant appealed the Regulation 10 decision.
The EAT considered the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) and the recent Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires (No.2) (2011) IRLR 915. Regulation 21(c)(ii) corresponds to Article 17(3)(c) of the Directive.
The EAT decided to refer the issue of the proper construction of Article 17(3)(c) of the Directive to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The question for determination is whether in order for a member state properly to claim the benefit of the derogation pursuant to Article 17(3)(c) of the Directive the requirement of continuity of service has to be established separately as regards each right under the Directive from which derogation is made or whether continuity of service should be addressed generally without consideration of the specific rights from which derogation has been made.
The EAT dismissed the Respondent’s cross-appeal that the ET erred when it found the Appellant’s activities involved a need for continuity of service.

Supperstone J
[2012] UKEAT 0425 – 11 – 0404, [2012] ICR D26
Bailii
Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd CA 8-Sep-2011
The employee security guard appealed against a finding that his employer had allowed rest breaks as allowed under the Regulations. He worked a continuous shift during which he was allowed to use a rest area, but he remained on call.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452506