Crawford v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

Where ordinary rest-break rights are excluded for railway workers, compensatory rest must, so far as possible, provide a genuine break from work lasting at least 20 continuous minutes. Shorter naturally occurring intervals cannot be aggregated merely because their total duration exceeds 20 minutes. Being on call during a break does not, by itself, prevent compliance with the compensatory-rest obligation. The length and continuity of the individual break remain crucial.

The claimant was a railway signaller working alone in signal boxes on eight-hour shifts. Regulation 21(f)(iii) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 excluded the ordinary rest-break entitlement under regulation 12 because his activities were linked to transport timetables and traffic continuity.

The employer permitted naturally occurring breaks between operational demands. These could aggregate to more than 20 minutes, but no individual break lasted 20 minutes and the claimant remained on call. The Employment Tribunal held that the arrangements complied with regulation 24(a). The central issue on appeal was whether an equivalent period of compensatory rest had to include one continuous break lasting at least 20 minutes.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal had erred in law in treating aggregated shorter breaks as sufficient compliance with regulation 24(a). The matter was remitted to identify the shifts on which no continuous 20-minute break was available and to consider remedies.
2. Regulation 12 ordinarily requires an uninterrupted rest break of at least 20 minutes, away from the workstation and during which the worker is not on call. Regulation 21(f)(iii) excluded that entitlement for the claimant’s work, making regulation 24(a) applicable.
3. Following Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1061, compensatory rest must have the characteristics of a break from work and must, so far as possible, ensure that the period free from work lasts at least 20 minutes. The reference to a period could not be read as permitting an amalgamation of separate shorter intervals.
4. The fact that the claimant remained on call did not itself defeat a regulation 24(a) claim, since that circumstance had not prevented compliance in Hughes. However, the absence of a continuous 20-minute break was decisive.
5. An employer’s view that accumulated shorter breaks might provide better health and safety protection could not displace the legal requirement. The Employment Tribunal had found that a relief signaller could provide a rostered 20-minute break, so regulation 24(a) was not satisfied on shifts where no such opportunity existed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the arrangements complied with regulation 24(a), and remitted the matter to identify affected shifts and consider remedies.