Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford

Where the standard rest-break entitlement is excluded or modified, compensatory rest under regulation 24(a) need not replicate a regulation 12 break. Equivalence means rest with the same value for the worker’s wellbeing, assessed in context by the specialist tribunal. It may consist of discontinuous periods, including shorter naturally occurring breaks aggregating to at least 20 minutes, if they provide a genuine break from work. An uninterrupted 20-minute period is not a universal legal minimum. Regulation 24(b) applies only where equivalent rest cannot be provided for objective reasons.

David Crawford, a railway signaller, claimed that Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd had failed to provide the rest breaks required by the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that regulation 21 applied, that the relevant entitlement was compensatory rest under regulation 24, and that the claimant had not been refused that entitlement.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, treating Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1061 as requiring at least 20 minutes of uninterrupted compensatory rest. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether discontinuous shorter periods could amount to an equivalent period of compensatory rest under regulation 24(a).

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal unanimously restored the Employment Tribunal’s decision dismissing the claim.

1. Regulation 24 was engaged because regulation 21 excluded the ordinary rest-break entitlement under regulation 12. The word “equivalent” did not impose an identical obligation. Compensatory rest had to provide the same value in contributing to the worker’s wellbeing.
2. Whether rest was equivalent was a matter for the informed judgment of the specialist Employment Tribunal. There was no legal rule that equivalent rest must consist of one uninterrupted period of at least 20 minutes. Depending on the work, discontinuous shorter periods could provide equivalent value. A collective or workforce agreement could also modify or exclude the ordinary 20-minute requirement.
3. The approach in Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1061 was accepted insofar as it treated regulation 24(a) rest as different from a regulation 12 break. The observation at paragraph 54 of Hughes did not form part of its dispositive reasoning and did not require an uninterrupted 20-minute period. The passages at paragraphs 28–31 merely reflected the way that case had been argued.
4. The Employment Tribunal had permissibly found that the signaller had numerous naturally occurring periods, each generally at least five minutes, which aggregated to more than 20 minutes and during which he had no task to perform and could leave his workstation. Its assessment that those periods were equivalent compensatory rest was adequately reasoned. The fact that a full regulation 12 break could have been arranged did not require that form of rest once equivalent rest was possible.
5. Because equivalent compensatory rest was possible, regulation 24(b) was not engaged. The no-refusal and limitation issues did not need to be determined.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2019] EWCA Civ 269: appeal allowed and the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal restored.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal (8 November 2017): appeal allowed on the basis that regulation 24(a) required at least 20 minutes of uninterrupted compensatory rest.
• Employment Tribunal, London Central (Reasons promulgated 22 August 2016): claim dismissed; regulation 21 applied, the entitlement was under regulation 24, and there had been no refusal of compensatory rest.