26 January 2012
Julio v Jose; Nambalat v Taher and another; Jose v Julio and other appeals UKEAT/0553/10/DM, [2012] All ER (D) 100 (Jan)
The exemption in reg 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/584) should be narrowly interpreted. It had to be shown that the relevant individual had genuinely been treated as a member of the family unit. In applying the test, the worker’s place within the family had to be considered holistically. The wording of reg 2(2)(a)(ii) emphasised that “particular regard” had to be had to the provision of accommodation and meals and the sharing of tasks and leisure activities.
However, it did not exclude regard to other material matters, such as the general dignity with which a domestic worker was treated, the degree of privacy and autonomy they were afforded, and the extent to which, if at all, they had been exploited. What work the worker did under his or her contract of employment was not relevant for the purposes of considering whether that condition was satisfied. Regulation 2(2)(a)(ii) did not require the worker to share all meals, tasks and leisure activities with the family,
