Collins v Club 24 Ltd (t/a Ventura)

For a continuing entitlement to daily or compensatory rest, time under regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 runs separately from each occasion on which the rest should have begun but was not provided. It does not run only from the first missed rest period, from refusal of a grievance, or from a prior request for permission.

The employer bears responsibility for providing daily rest. The limitation wording must accommodate both rest rights, which do not depend on a request, and annual leave, which does. Claims remain limited to the applicable period preceding presentation, subject to any statutory extension.

The respondents were relief ambulance workers who claimed that travelling time and on-call time counted as working time. They alleged that, after the correct calculation, they had not received daily rest under regulation 10 or compensatory rest under regulation 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the employer’s contention that the claims were out of time. The employer appealed, arguing that time began either when a grievance was refused or on the first occasion when rest was missed. The central issue was the proper interpretation of regulation 30(2).

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had not erred in law. The case was remitted to the same Tribunal to proceed accordingly.
2. Under regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the relevant date is the date on which the claimant should have enjoyed the daily rest under regulation 10, or compensatory rest under regulation 24, about which the complaint is made. Each occasion of missed rest gives rise to a fresh limitation period.
3. The parenthetical wording in regulation 30(2), dealing with rest extending over more than one day, confirms that time runs from the date on which the relevant rest should have begun. The relevant date is therefore when the worker would have begun using the right, absent the employer’s breach.
4. The employer’s proposed alternatives were rejected. The wording does not make time run from refusal of a grievance or from the first missed rest period. Such approaches would conflict with the continuing daily duty to provide 11 hours’ rest in each 24-hour period of work.
5. The limitation provisions must be read in the context of the statutory minimum standards. Daily rest is not dependent on a worker making a request. Annual leave is different because regulation 15 requires it to be requested. Regulation 30 is drafted to cover both situations.
6. Miles did not determine the limitation issue; its analysis concerned compensation under regulation 30(4). The approach in Hughes, that time runs from the date when the rest should actually have been given, was preferred. Humphries, concerning reasonable adjustments, was not of assistance.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Aberdeen, whose judgment registered on 4 April 2011 held that the claims were not time barred. Appeal dismissed and case remitted to the same Tribunal.