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.

Background

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.

Facts

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.

Decision

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.

Comment

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.

CONTACT CHRIS

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 2018

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.
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
Justifying 'fat cat' pay

Partner, Keely Rushmore examines what the pay ratio reporting could mean for your company

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should The Equalities Act 2010 be updated?

Chris Cook, partner and head of employment at SA Law, comments on a recent study which found that one in three employers admitted they were less likely…

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Should employers modify dress codes in this heatwave?

Partner and Director of Finance and Business support, Gill Garrett, comments in The Times on whether extreme weather should see alterations to dress codes…

Read More
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
Views & Insights
Getting to the meat of employee choice

Companies must be made aware of discrimination laws when dictating what workers can and can't do, says Keely Rushmore, Partner at SA Law.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Worker versus Self-Employed

The Gig economy makes more headlines as The Supreme Court agree Mr Smith was a worker and Pimlico plumbers had fallen foul of employment rights.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Reality TV and the protection of stars' welfare

Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook comments in The Daily Star on the increasing pressure for production companies to ensure the welfare of contestants.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
The Government's guidance on The Trade Union Act 2016

How should employers' implement the Trade Union Act 2016? Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook explains.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insights
Dress codes and sex discrimination - The Government's response

Read Head of Employment, Chris Cook's analysis of the Government's response to the 2015 Nicola Thorp "wear heels or go home" controversy.

Read More