EAT National minimum wage – Working time regulations
The Claimant was employed as Warden of the Respondent’s Arts Centre. He and his wife, who also worked for the Respondent were required to live in a flat at the Arts centre. His case before the Employment Tribunal was that he actually worked well over 48 hours per week and was required to do so. The Employment Tribunal rejected his case on the facts. The premise on which his appeal was based was that he was ‘on call’ for many hours and that time on call should be treated as working time for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations. That case was contrary to that put before the Employment Tribunal and was inconsistent with its findings of fact. The Claimant was in effect trying to construct a case on all fours with Maccartney v Oversley House Management UKEAT/0500/05, but was bound by the findings of the Employment Tribunal and could not rely upon material that was not placed before it to justify the new case.
Judges:
Serota QC
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0390 – 06 – 1302
Links:
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248798