header-logo header-logo

10 October 2014 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Golden slumbers?

Should employees be paid to sleep? Tom Walker reports

For several years a debate has been played out in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and higher courts as to when an employer can avoid paying an employee who is allowed to sleep on the premises. Typically this has involved managers at care homes and security guards. Recent case law suggests that employers might need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Working while asleep? 

Case law in this area must be seen in the light of two purposive ECJ cases involving doctors, SIMAP [2000] IRLR 845, [2001] All ER (EC) 609 and Jaeger [2003] IRLR 804, [2003] All ER (D) 72 (Sep). In both cases doctors were allowed to sleep and carry out leisure activities but had to remain on the premises. The European Court held this was working time. The doctors were not free to be at a place of their choosing and had to be available for work if required.

However Regulation 15 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 allows an employer to avoid paying an employee where their home is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll