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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll