Employers’ duty to take steps to provide rest breaks to workers

In the past there have been conflicting EAT decisions on the correct approach to determining whether rest entitlements had been denied under the WTR. However, in the case of Grange v Abellio London Limited, the EAT has made it clear that employers have a proactive duty to ensure a worker's entitlement to take a rest break and that entitlement will be held to have been "refused" if the employer puts into place working arrangements that fail to allow the taking of the required rest break.


Under the Working Time Regulations (WTR), a worker is entitled to a 20-minute rest break if their daily working time is more than 6 hours. If this right is refused, workers can bring a claim.

Previous case law has indicated that in order to bring a claim there had to have been an actual refusal by an employer; a literal interpretation of the word “refusal” and for such a refusal to occur, an actual request is needed to have been made by the individual.


Mr Grange was employed by Abellio London Limited (Abellio) from 2009, working eight and a half hour days. The half an hour was unpaid and treated as a rest break. In reality, it was often difficult to take that break due to the nature of the job. In recognition if this, both Mr Grange’s and others working in his role had their hours reduced to eight hours so that employees would finish earlier with no break. This was communicated to Mr Grange in an email sent in July 2012.

Two years later, Mr Grange submitted a grievance complaining that he had been forced to work without a meal break, impacting on his health. The grievance was rejected.

Mr Grange lodged a claim before the grievance proceedings had concluded, claiming he had been denied his right to a rest break. This was dismissed. The Tribunal found that a breach only occurs when a worker asks to exercise their right and is subsequently refused.

Mr Grange appealed.


The EAT allowed the appeal.

It found that entitlement to a rest break “is intended to be actively respected by employers” and a “purposive approach” should be taken. This means that employers should not only permit rest breaks to be taken, but also to proactively ensure that working arrangements allow for workers to take them.

Entitlement will be held to have been “refused” if an employer has put in place working arrangements that do not allow the worker to take required breaks.


This is an important decision as it makes clear that employers have an active duty to ensure workers are able to take a 20-minute uninterrupted rest break, for every six hours worked.

It falls on the employer to ensure rest breaks are actively provided because the EAT rejected the suggestion that the individual is required to request a rest break before entitlement can arise.

Employers should review all working arrangements and check that workers are able to take rest breaks if they want to. Employers are not required to ensure that workers actually do take their rest breaks.

In reality, many workers in high-pressured environments do not take rest breaks and probably won’t complain that the right has been denied. Their reasoning may be that it is their choice. However, be aware that as an employer, you will not be able to use this as a defence if the employee later complains and seeks to enforce their rights.


If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798089.

© SA LAW 2019

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.
Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
The team at SA Law LLP has ‘excellent knowledge of employment law’. Practice head Chris Cook is recommended.
The Legal 500
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Proposed changes to NDA rules 'not enough to end workplace harassment'

Partner Keely Rushmore comments in People Management about the government's announcement.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Smart Exits: Protected Conversations and Termination Payments

Chris Cook addresses the most appropriate ways of reaching a settlement when managing an employee's exit from a company.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Increased rights for agency and zero-hours workers

The ‘Good Work Plan’ aims to address the rights of those with atypical worker statuses, including agency workers and those on zero-hours contracts.

Chris Cook handles the full range of employment law for both individuals and organisations. He receives particular recognition for his strong TUPE expertise.…
Chambers & Partners
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Consultation into extending redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents

New consultation for redundancy protection while on or shortly after maternity leave or shared parental leave.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
A guide to flexible working & flexible working requests

Flexible working can assist employers in attracting and retaining talented candidates and staff. Our guide covers the key questions and considerations…

SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
Google issued with £44m fine over GDPR breach

Head of Employment and Data Protection, Chris Cook, explains Google's GDPR breach that led to landmark £44 million fine.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
CEO and average worker pay gap reporting launches

Latest comment in HR Magazine: Keely explains what HR teams should know about the CEO and average worker pay gap regulations, which come into force in…

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Deliveroo riders’ lose latest challenge to their employment status

The latest development in the Deliveroo gig-economy case sees riders appeal for trade union representation denied