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 798098.

© SA LAW 2022

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
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
SA Law - Lightbulbs image with fillament
Views & Insights
Holiday Pay for Part Year Workers

Under the Working Time Regulations, the 5.6 weeks’ annual leave entitlement must not be pro-rated for part-year workers on permanent contracts.

Read More
Red and yellow leaves, blue sky SA Law
Views & Insights
Why does employment status matter?

How do you know if your staff are employees, workers or self-employed, and what difference does it make?

Read More
SA Law light moving
Views & Insights
What directors can learn from the collapse of NMCN

CFOs and other directors can use the collapse of NMCN to put their own house in order and help ward of the impact of recessionary forces.

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
Join our team puzzle piece SA Law
Views & Insights
SA Law expands employment team

SA Law is proud to welcome James Cresswell and Stephanie Clarke to its employment team, bringing the team size up to seven qualified lawyers.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Insolvency insights - the NMCN collapse

Insolvency solicitor, Helen Young and employment lawyer Nishma Chudasama consider what accountants can learn from the failure of NMCN.

Read More
SA Law Changes Clock
Views & Insights
Trialling the 4-day working week

70 businesses are taking part in a 4-day working week trial, for no loss of pay. What could this mean for employers, employees and customer service?

Read More
GDPR Numbers Image SA Law
Views & Insights
The Future of Data Protection in the UK

'UK GDPR' - What is the Data Reform Bill?

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners