Jordans has teamed up with Barrister Allan Roberts from Guildhall Chambers to create this helpful tool which enables users to simply and quickly estimate the likely pension loss for claimants in Employment Tribunal cases.
Try out this free service today!
Shannon v Rampersad and Rampersad UKEAT/0050/15; (2015) EMPLR 063
24 September 2015
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
HHJ Peter Clark
night worker at a residential home,who was provided with accommodation
and was required to be on-call from 10pm to 7am each night, was not ‘working’
whilst on-call and was not entitled to the national minimum wage for that time.
He was permitted to sleep while on-call and was only required to work when
called upon to do so, which was rare because there was always another night
worker on site.
and 16 of the NMW Regulations 1999 provide that, in addition to time spent
actually working, time when a worker is required to be available for work at or
near the place of work counts as working time except where the worker is
entitled to spend that time at home and the that home is at or near the place
of work. Regulations 15A and 16A add that time when a worker is available for
work but is provided with suitable sleeping facilities and is entitled to sleep
only counts as working time when the worker is awake for the purposes of
that he should have been paid the national minimum wage for all hours when he
was on-call. His circumstances appear to fall within the exceptions in
regulations 15A and 16A, unless it could be said that, while ‘on-call’, he was
not merely ‘available for work’ but was actually working. Some earlier cases
(eg British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue  IRLR 480
CA and more recently, with
very similar facts to this one, Esparon v Slavikovska  IRLR
598 EAT) have suggested that
time spent waiting to answer calls, if that is the whole point of the
employment, amounts to working, and not merely ‘being available for work’. That
remained true, the Court of Appeal had held in British Nursing, even
when the worker was entitled to sleep.
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s conclusion that S
was not working while on-call - he was merely available for work. The EAT did
not clearly explain why the night worker in Esparon was treated as
‘working’ while S was not.