Sleep-in workers not entitled to NMW for entire shift
The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in Royal Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake and another case that two care workers who slept overnight at their employer’s premises but were on call for emergencies fell within the sleep-in exception in the national minimum wage (NMW) legislation. This meant that they were entitled to be paid the NMW only for the time they were awake and providing assistance and not for the entire shift.
Ms Tomlinson Blake worked for Mencap as a care support worker in a privately-owned property providing care and support to two men with autism and substantial learning disabilities. She had no specific tasks during her sleep-in shift from 10pm to 7am, but was obliged to keep a listening ear out during the night and was expected to provide assistance if necessary. In practice this had happened six times in 16 months. She received a payment of £29.05 for each shift. Mr Shannon, worked as an “on-call night care assistant” at Clifton House Residential Home. He was provided with free accommodation and an allowance. He was required to be in the flat from 10pm to 7am and to provide assistance if needed which rarely happened in practice.
Both individuals brought claims that they were entitled to NMW for the entire shift including while they were asleep and the case turned on whether they fell within the sleep-in exception in the NMW legislation. Ms Tomlinson Blake had been successful before the Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. However, the Court of Appeal in both cases had found that the sleep-in exception applied.
Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decision that they were only entitled to be paid NMW for the hours they were providing assistance and not while asleep. When interpreting the legislation, the Court took into account the Low Pay Commission recommendation that sleep-in workers are only entitled to the NMW for hours when they were actually working. Although they were available for work, they were positively expected to sleep during their shift and the Court held it was important to distinguish between when someone is actually working as opposed to being available for work. It is therefore necessary to look at what the worker’s duties are when they are not asleep but within the hours of the shift. If the only requirement is to respond to emergency calls, the time is not included in the NMW calculation. Time is only included when the worker is awake for the purpose of working such as responding to a call. Therefore even if a worker’s sleep is constantly interrupted, they are still only entitled to be paid for the time they are working and not for the entire shift.
Case law in this area has historically been inconsistent and the Supreme Court specifically overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue which had concluded that employees were working throughout a nightshift even when they were expected to be asleep along with other similar decisions. This decision therefore provides helpful clarification for employers going forwards. The question of whether employers will have to pay sleep-in workers for their entire shifts will come down to whether the main purpose of the arrangement is for them to work, or if they are expected to sleep but be available for work in which case they will only be paid if they are called upon.
Employers, and particularly those in the social care sector, will be breathing a sigh of relief as they had otherwise been at risk of significantly increased staffing costs and claims for up to six years’ worth of back pay. It means the ongoing support for vulnerable people will be safeguarded and will also contribute to strengthening the sustainability of the sector. The ruling will also affect employers in other sectors too, who engage sleep-in workers at their premises, such as security staff or those providing emergency IT cover.
For further comment from our team on this case, see our recent press coverage here.
For more information, please contact Sara Wilson.
Construction & Infrastructure Seminar
Experts will give insights and analysis on Building & Fire Safety, Case law updates and global supply shortages.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises shareholders of eCommonSense on sale to ECI Software Solutions
eCommonSense is a technology solutions provider focused on the construction and building materials supply sectors.
Examining the draft RPDT legislation
Helen Coward considers the important aspects of the draft legislation for the new residential property developer tax.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Silbury Finance on a £55m facility to a Jersey unit trust
Silbury provides real estate development finance for professional developers seeking to acquire and build in the UK.
Who will carry the risk? Professional indemnity crisis in construction
The UK government announced details of its ban on the use of combustible materials on high rise buildings.
Charles Russell Speechlys acts for Cmostores Group Limited on its acquisition of JTM Plumbing Limited
CMO Group Plc, UK’s largest pureplay online retailer of building materials which recently listed on AIM.
The role of IFCs in the post-Brexit environment
International Financial Centres (“IFCs”), are now on a level playing field with the UK when approaching the EU market.
New Criminal Offences – Pensions Regulator’s Approach
Tom and Esther take a look at the Pensions Regulator's recently published guidance on their new powers
Charles Russell Speechlys advises the founders of Compandben on the sale of the business to TopSource Worldwide
Compandben is one of the longest established international providers of employment solutions.
Construction Update on Building Safety and the Golden Thread
Find out about the construction update on Building Safety and the Golden Thread.
Sophie Lockwood writes for Employment Law Journal on the challenges for employers when managing the return from furlough
With the CJRS ending on 30 September 2021, many employers are turning their minds to managing employees’ return from furlough.
Charles Russell Speechlys Hong Kong successfully defends equal opportunities action brought against Novartis
We have successfully defended NYSE-listed healthcare company Novartis against an equal opportunities action filed by a former employee.
Residential property developer tax: Draft legislation published and technical consultation launched
While a number of important issues have been addressed in the legislation, there is still a lot outstanding.
Strategic Planning for Modern Landed Estates
The second in our series of articles on succession planning for landed estates covering a wide variety of matters.
Pharmacy Brief - September 2021
The September edition of our Pharmacy Brief
When can you set off claims against different elements of a project
The Court’s decision raises important drafting considerations for construction contracts involving multiple elements of a project.
Drafting terms and conditions or negotiating a contract? Be wary of "unusual" and "exorbitant" exclusion clauses
When drafting a set of terms and conditions, companies must adhere to the requirements contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Stop, collaborate and listen: Top 10 Tips with Collaboration Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips on collaboration agreements - what should you know?
Grab the tail by the horns - Why is tail spend so critical in today’s outsourced portfolio?
It’s usually invisible, but in all likelihood, you’ve got tail spend.
eCommerce and the Post-Brexit State of Play
Key UK and EU legislation governing how online platforms deal with consumers and their business users.