Until this case there were conflicting decisions on whether a
worker could complain of being denied a rest break only if he or
she has made an explicit request for a break. The EAT resolved the
conflict in the worker's favour and held that the way the
working day is arranged can have the effect of denying the worker
the right to a rest. Although the employee did not complain for two
and half years, the employer had a responsibility to make sure that
employees are able to take their breaks. As the denial of a rest
break can lead to a claim for compensation, employers should
proactively monitor their working practices and make sure that
working arrangements do not in practice make it impossible for
workers to take breaks.
Where a worker's daily working time is six hours or more the
worker is entitled under the Working Time Regulations to a break of
at least 20 minutes. Mr Grange was employed by Abellio London
Limited from 2009. He initially had responsibility for monitoring
the arrival and departure times of a bus service and generally
managing it. He had a working day of eight and a half hours of
which half an hour was unpaid and treated as a rest break, although
in practice he had difficulty taking the break. From July 2012 his
working hours (and those of others in a similar role) reduced to
eight hours, on the understanding that they would work without a
break and finish half an hour earlier. This was communicated to
staff at a meeting although Mr Grange was not present.
In July 2014, Mr Grange lodged a grievance and complained that
having had to work without a break for two and a half years had
negatively affected his health. The grievance was not upheld. In
the meantime he brought a claim in the employment tribunal,
claiming that he had been denied his entitlement to a rest break at
various times during his employment. Following earlier case law,
the Tribunal rejected his claim on the basis that he had not made a
request for a break and therefore the employer had never actually
refused to give him one.
The EAT said that that was the wrong approach. It relied on a
judgment of the European Court in which the Court said that
employers 'cannot withdraw into a passive role and grant rest
periods only to those workers who ask for them' but rather the
employer has a 'duty to afford' them. It sent the claim
back to the tribunal to look at the facts again in light of that
Employers may have been lulled into a false sense of security by
the earlier case law and need to be aware of the risk of claims if
they arrange working hours in a way that explicitly or implicitly
prevents employees from taking a short break during the working
day. They should also bolster their position by positively
encouraging employees to take breaks, for example by including a
clear policy in their staff handbooks and training managers to
raise the issue with employees who appear to be working long hours
without a break.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Court of Appeal has held that where a contract of employment lacks a provision for when notice of termination takes effect, it is effective from when the employee personally takes delivery of the letter containing notice.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).