Gallagher & Ors v Alpha Catering Services Ltd

[2004] EWCA Civ 1559

Case details

Case citations
[2004] EWCA Civ 1559 · [2005] ICR 673
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
8 November 2004
Source judgment

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Employment law Working time and rest breaks Derogations and exemptions
Keywords
working time rest breaks Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 21(c) Regulation 21(d) Regulation 24 downtime surge derogation scope
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Derogations from workers' rest-break rights are to be read as applying where the worker's activities, not merely the employer's business, involve a need for continuity; a "surge" requires an exceptional increase in activity beyond routine daily or weekly fluctuations; and periods of "downtime" do not qualify as rest breaks where the worker remains at the employer's disposal and does not know at the outset that the period is his own time.

Abstract

The appellants were employees of a catering company who complained that their employer denied them statutory rest breaks under Regulation 12(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Employment Tribunal held that Regulation 21(c) excluded the employees from the right to rest breaks on the basis that their activities involved a need for continuity of service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employees' appeal. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeal on the scope of Regulation 21(c) and sought permission to appeal on related points concerning Regulation 21(d), downtime and Regulation 24 compensatory rest. The central issues were whether the derogation in Regulation 21(c) is concerned with the worker's activities or the employer's business, the meaning of a "surge" under Regulation 21(d), whether downtime may constitute a rest break, and whether Regulation 24 remained available if Regulation 21(c) did not apply.

Held

(1) Disposition: Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's conclusion that the exclusion in Regulation 21(c) is to be read with reference to the worker's activities rather than merely the employer's business, and refuses permission to appeal on the other points. (2) The court construed Regulation 21(c) and Article 17.2.1(c) of the Directive as focusing on the activities of the worker which involve a need for continuity of service or production rather than solely on the employer's commercial operations. The Employment Tribunal erred in concentrating on the employer's need; the EAT's construction was correct and narrowly read derogations from health-and-safety rights. (3) On Regulation 21(d) the court held that a "surge" connotes an exceptional level of activity (for example seasonal or special-period peaks) beyond ordinary daily or weekly fluctuations; the Employment Tribunal's restrictive approach was correct and there was no real prospect of success on Alpha's appeal. (4) On downtime the court held that where workers remain at their employer's disposal and are required to maintain contact and may be recalled, such periods do not qualify as rest breaks simply because an uninterrupted period of 20 minutes can be identified retrospectively; the Employment Tribunal's factual approach and conclusion were not to be disturbed. (5) The Court did not rule finally on Regulation 24 in view of the dismissals on the principal points. (6) Costs awarded to the Employees; matter remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further directions.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed in part by dismissing employer's appeal and refusing permission to appeal further; judgment delivered 8 November 2004 ([2004] EWCA Civ 1559).
  • Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the employees' appeal against the Employment Tribunal's finding on Regulation 21(c) and dismissed employer's cross-appeal (decision dated 17 March 2004; neutral citation not provided in the judgment).
  • Employment Tribunal (London South): Original decision sent 7 October 2003 dismissing originating applications on the ground Regulation 21(c) excluded protection under Regulation 12(1).

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Employment Appeal Tribunal (decision appealed: not given a neutral citation in the judgment)
Outcome:
appeal dismissed

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.