Russell & Ors v Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors (Scotland)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a group of offshore employees (“the Appellants”) who work a repeating rota of approximately two weeks on an offshore installation followed by about two weeks onshore (“field break”). During offshore periods they work 12–hour shifts with no full days off. When onshore they are generally free from work obligations, save for occasional mandatory training or medical assessments.

The Appellants claimed in the Employment Tribunal that their employers (“the Respondents”) were obliged under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”) to allow four weeks of paid annual leave to be taken out of the weeks they would otherwise spend working offshore. The Respondents contended that the onshore field-break weeks already satisfied (and exceeded) the statutory entitlement.

The Employment Tribunal found for the Appellants, holding that “annual leave” required release from what would otherwise have been an obligation to work. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (majority) reversed that decision, ruling that the field-break weeks constituted sufficient rest. The Inner House of the Court of Session upheld the EAT. The present appeal to the Supreme Court (judgment delivered by Judge Hope, with four Justices concurring) followed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether periods spent onshore during an agreed field-break rota count toward the minimum four-week entitlement to paid annual leave under Regulation 13 of the WTR (implementing Article 7 of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC (“WTD”)).
2. Consequently, whether employers may insist that offshore employees take their statutory annual leave during those onshore periods when they are not otherwise required to work.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• “Annual leave” must mean release from a pre-existing obligation to work; time that is already free of such obligation cannot be designated as annual leave.
• The qualitative purpose of annual leave (rest, relaxation and leisure) is distinct from ordinary field-break rest; counting field-break weeks would defeat the health-and-safety objective of Article 7 WTD.
• They relied on CJEU jurisprudence (e.g., Merino Gomez, Stringer, Pereda) to emphasise that annual leave has an autonomous status and cannot be conflated with other kinds of absence.
• Because only offshore weeks are “working weeks,” the contract should be characterised as a 26-week contract; the remaining 26 weeks already belong to the employees and cannot satisfy the employer’s obligation.
• If the Court disagreed, a reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU was sought.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Field-break weeks are “rest periods” within the meaning of Article 2 WTD; they far exceed the four-week minimum, so the statutory requirement is already met.
• No qualitative test exists in the Directive beyond being time that is not “working time.”
• The Directive and the WTR adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach; employers may organise patterns provided the minima are respected. Regulation 15 WTR expressly allows employers to determine dates of leave.
• Derogations for offshore work (Article 17 WTD; Regulation 21 WTR) are satisfied by providing compensatory rest; the first two days of each field break are already treated as such.
• Prior domestic authority (e.g., the Sumsion decision) shows that leave may be scheduled in periods when the employee would not otherwise be working.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Delivering the unanimous judgment, Judge Hope reasoned as follows:

• Statutory Definitions: Article 2 WTD defines a “rest period” as any time that is not “working time.” Nothing in Article 7 adds a qualitative requirement beyond this.
• Counting Rest, Not Evaluating Its Quality: The Directive’s structure establishes minima (daily, weekly, annual) that are satisfied through temporal calculation, not subjective assessment of rest quality. Therefore, field-break weeks, during which the workers have no obligations, are “rest periods.”
• No Contractual Obstacle: The Appellants are employed for the whole year; the cyclical rota is part of that single contract, not two discrete contracts. Hence their employment relationship is continuous.
• Consistency with Article 7: Article 7 does not mandate that annual leave be taken during periods when the employee would otherwise be working, nor that it be consecutive or uninterrupted. Employers may schedule leave within existing rest periods provided the minimum amount is afforded and remuneration maintained.
• Regulation 15 WTR: This expressly allows an employer to require an employee to take leave on specified days. Using field-break weeks for that purpose is permissible.
• Health and Safety Objective Met: There was no evidence that the rota jeopardised safety or health; the workers already receive compensatory rest for long offshore shifts (Regulations 21 and 24 WTR).
• No Need for Reference: The meaning of “annual leave” is acte clair; prior CJEU case law does not support the Appellants’ interpretation. A reference under Article 267 TFEU was therefore refused.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

The Supreme Court affirmed that employers may require offshore workers to take their statutory annual leave during onshore field-break weeks. As those weeks are already free from work obligations, they count toward the four-week minimum under Regulation 13 WTR. The decision confirms that, in the United Kingdom, the Working Time Directive permits annual leave to be scheduled within pre-existing rest periods, provided the quantitative minimum is met. The ruling maintains existing industry practice and offers guidance to other sectors with fixed non-working periods (e.g., education, seasonal industries). No new legal test was created, but clarity was given on the interpretation of Article 7 WTD and Regulation 13 WTR.