JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
The Claimant presented a claim which alleged breach of Regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’), namely the failure to provide rest breaks. The claim was dismissed, but on appeal (HHJ Eady QC) was remitted. By written submissions before the Remitted Hearing the Respondent for the first time contended that all claims of refusal to provide rest breaks before 5 July 2014 were out of time (WTR Reg.30(2)), so that the ET had no jurisdiction to that extent. The new point was entertained and upheld by the ET. The Respondent conceded breach for the residual claims, which amounted to refusal of rest breaks on 14 days between 6 July and 14 September 2014. Taking account of evidence as to the effect of the absence of rest breaks on the appellant’s pre-existing medical condition which was known to the Respondent, the ET awarded compensation of pounds 750.
On appeal the Claimant contended that the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) had no jurisdiction to entertain the new point since it did not fall within the terms of the order for remission Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods plc (No.2) [2000] ICR 341. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) dismissed the appeal. An arguable point on jurisdiction having been taken, the ET was bound to consider it Radakovits v Abbey National plc [2010] IRLR 307.
On the cross-appeal, the Respondent contended that the compensation represented an award for injury to feelings and/or personal injury, which in either case were not permitted, citing Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd [2018] ICR 1571, and/or had no adequate evidential basis and was excessive. The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the award was for personal injury; Santos Gomes did not bar such an award; and that it was sufficiently supported by the evidence and not excessive.
Citations:
[2018] UKEAT 0304 – 17 – 0810
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634373