Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant is a signaller employed by Company A who claims that Company A failed to provide him with rest breaks as required under the Working Time Regulations 1998 ("the WTR"). The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed his claim, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed his appeal. The claim concerns whether the Appellant was entitled to uninterrupted rest breaks or compensatory rest under the WTR, given the nature of his work.
The Appellant’s duties involved providing relief cover for single-manned signal boxes in various locations. Company A published guidance treating the work as "intermittent" under regulation 21(f), entitling workers to compensatory rest under regulation 24 rather than standard rest breaks under regulation 12. The Appellant contended he was entitled to uninterrupted 20-minute breaks, or at least compensatory rest of that length. Company A argued that discontinuous shorter breaks aggregating to 20 minutes satisfied the obligation and that the Appellant had not been refused such breaks within the statutory time limit.
The ET found that regulation 21 applied, that discontinuous breaks aggregating to 20 minutes were sufficient compensatory rest under regulation 24(a), and that Company A had not refused the Appellant such rest. The ET also found the claim was out of time if refusal had occurred. The EAT overturned the ET decision on the legal issue of whether compensatory rest must be an uninterrupted 20 minutes, relying on prior authority. Company A appealed to this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an "equivalent period of compensatory rest" under regulation 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 must be an uninterrupted period of at least 20 minutes, or whether discontinuous periods aggregating to 20 minutes suffice.
- Whether the Appellant had been "refused" compensatory rest within the meaning of regulation 30(1), and if so, whether the claim was brought in time.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant argued that under regulation 12(3) he was entitled to a Gallagher rest-break (uninterrupted 20 minutes) each shift, and alternatively, under regulation 24, compensatory rest must also be uninterrupted and at least 20 minutes in length.
- The Appellant contended that his work was so continuous that he was not afforded any such uninterrupted breaks or even shorter breaks.
- He challenged the ET’s acceptance that discontinuous breaks aggregating to 20 minutes satisfied regulation 24(a), relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd which required compensatory rest to be as uninterrupted as possible.
- He submitted that the ET failed adequately to consider or give reasons for its conclusion that compensatory rest had been provided.
Appellant's Respondent's Notice Additional Grounds
- The Appellant argued that since the ET found it was possible to provide continuous 20-minute compensatory rest, the equivalent rest must be continuous.
- The Appellant also argued the ET did not adequately analyze or reason its conclusion that compensatory rest was provided.
Company A's Arguments
- Company A contended that regulation 21 applied, excluding regulation 12, so compensatory rest under regulation 24 was the relevant entitlement.
- They argued that discontinuous shorter breaks aggregating to at least 20 minutes satisfy the requirement for compensatory rest under regulation 24(a).
- Company A maintained that the Appellant had never requested such breaks and thus had not been refused them within the meaning of the WTR, invoking a "no refusal" defense.
- They further argued that even if refusal had occurred, the claim was out of time, relying on a limitation defense.
- On appeal, Company A challenged the EAT’s interpretation of Hughes, arguing that compensatory rest need not be uninterrupted and that the EAT erred in holding otherwise.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| United Kingdom v Council of the European Union (C-84/94) [1997] ICR 443 |
Broad interpretation of health and safety powers underpinning the Working Time Directive. |
Supported the interpretation of the Directive as a health and safety measure aimed at protecting workers' well-being. |
| Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2005] ICR 673 |
Definition of a "Gallagher rest-break": uninterrupted 20 minutes' rest known to the worker at the start. |
Used to define the standard rest break under regulation 12, distinguishing it from compensatory rest under regulation 24. |
| Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2011] IRLR 915 |
Compensatory rest under regulation 24 must, so far as possible, be a continuous 20-minute break free from work. |
The EAT relied on this case to hold that compensatory rest must be uninterrupted; this Court reviewed and ultimately disagreed with that interpretation. |
| Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd [2008] IRLR 602 |
Meaning of "refused to permit" under regulation 30 WTR. |
Referenced in relation to the "no refusal" defense; Company A accepted it was wrongly decided and did not rely on it. |
| Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2017] ICR 287 |
Interpretation of "refused to permit" under regulation 30 WTR. |
Referenced as the more recent authority on refusal; no substantive challenge made to this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting that regulation 24 is engaged only because regulation 21 excludes the application of regulation 12 for certain types of work, including the Appellant's. Thus, the compensatory rest under regulation 24 is not intended to be identical to the rest breaks under regulation 12 but must be "equivalent" in terms of contributing to the worker's well-being.
The Court emphasized that the term "equivalent" contemplates flexibility and variation in how rest is provided, reflecting the different nature of work and practicalities involved. It found no principled reason to require compensatory rest to be an uninterrupted 20 minutes, and that discontinuous breaks aggregating to 20 minutes could satisfy the regulation.
The Court analyzed the EAT’s reliance on Hughes and found that the passage requiring an uninterrupted 20-minute break was not part of the Court of Appeal's dispositive reasoning but rather an observation in context. The Court held that the EAT had erred in interpreting Hughes as mandating uninterrupted compensatory rest.
The Court also rejected the argument that the availability of uninterrupted breaks made the discontinuous breaks insufficient, noting that equivalence does not require identity with regulation 12 breaks.
Regarding the ET’s findings, the Court held that the ET had adequately considered the evidence, including expert reports and witness testimony, and had made a reasoned judgment that the pattern of discontinuous breaks provided an equivalent benefit to the Appellant. The Court found no error of law in the ET’s decision on this point.
Because the Court restored the ET’s decision on the main issue, it did not consider the "no refusal" and limitation issues in detail, noting that Company A had accepted the prior authority on refusal was wrongly decided and that the point was not determinative here.
Holding and Implications
The Court ALLOWED the appeal by Company A and restored the Employment Tribunal’s decision dismissing the Appellant’s claim.
The holding clarifies that under regulation 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, compensatory rest need not be provided as a single uninterrupted 20-minute break but may consist of discontinuous shorter breaks aggregating to that duration, provided they afford an equivalent benefit to the worker’s well-being.
The direct effect is that in cases involving intermittent work excluded from regulation 12 by regulation 21, employers may satisfy their compensatory rest obligations through aggregated shorter breaks rather than continuous rest periods. No new precedent was created beyond the clarification of the interpretation of "equivalent period of compensatory rest" under regulation 24(a).