When mini
breaks just don’t cut it
Tribunal
says twenty-minute rest periods for workers should be given in one run, not as
a series of mini-breaks
The mini
break may have made the perfect date for Bridget Jones, but when it comes to
employee rights, companies need to make sure they do everything to enable
workers to take a full, uninterrupted 20-minute rest break.
The warning comes after Network Rail was found to have failed to take
the necessary steps to facilitate full 20-minute rest breaks, despite the
employee being in a role that has special provision for alternative
arrangements.
The case was
brought by a railway signalman who was responsible for running single-manned
signal boxes on eight hour shifts. Due
to train timetables, he could not take an uninterrupted break and had to be
on-call when he did take a break. As a
result, he argued that he had been denied his legal entitlement under the
Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR).
All workers are entitled to an uninterrupted 20-minute rest break away
from their usual working location after six hours of working under the WTR. It must be known to be a rest break before it
starts, so if someone has had an unexpected 20 minute gap in their day, this
can’t be treated as the rest break retrospectively.
If a worker is on call during a break, then it will not count as a rest
break, but Regulation 24 of the WTR says that some workers will be excluded
from these provisions as it may not be feasible to schedule the rest break in
the usual way, but they must be allowed an equivalent period of compensatory
rest. This applies to railway workers
and others such as paramedics, or lone workers such as those in a security
role.
Although Network Rail provided a relief signaller in some regions,
they did not do so in Mr Crawford’s region and instead told him that he could
take shorter breaks during his shifts “between periods of operational
demand” and that these shorter breaks would add up to more than 20 minutes.
At the first hearing the Employment Tribunal held that Network Rail
had acted correctly and that when added together the short breaks were
compliant with the requirements of compensatory rest. But Mr Crawford appealed, and the Employment Appeal
Tribunal (EAT) ruled against Network Rail.
The EAT said that if it were possible to provide workers with a full
uninterrupted 20-minute break, then that should be what happens. As Network Rail were providing the relief
signalman in other regions, they must have been able to take steps to provide
the same option in Mr Crawford’s region.
Said Elissa Thursfield, employment expert with Gamlins Law : “Minimum
rest periods are there for the protection of health and safety and this ruling
demonstrates, once again, that tribunals will not allow employers to duck out
of their responsibility.
“As with all
terms of employment, the starting point should be a clear policy that everyone
knows and understands, especially where workers are involved in environments in
which pre-scheduled breaks are hard to operate, or they are working alone. It’s important to re-evaluate regularly and
see if problems are arising, and take steps to ensure that breaks are being
taken. You also need to be proactive
about it, as arguing that a worker never asked for a break is not going to let
you off the hook.”
She added: “If you have a situation where it is difficult to
give workers an uninterrupted break, away from their work station, then it’s
worth reviewing the position with some specialist guidance, as the alternative
may be an expensive tribunal claim.”
