Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The Court of Appeal (CoA) last month handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the case of Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2018] EWCA Civ 1641, addressing the issue of whether staff carrying out overnight ‘sleep-in’ shifts in the care sector were entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the entire duration of those shifts. The CoA also heard the case of  Shannon v Rampersad [2015] IRLR 982, which was an appeal (by the employee) in another sleep-in case.

The CoA allowed the appeal in Royal Mencap, holding that both in that case and in Shannon, sleepers-in were to be characterised for the purpose of the NMW Regulations (1999 and 2015) as available for work, within the meaning of the Regulations, rather than actually working, and so fell within the terms of the sleep-in exception. The result was that the only time that counted for NMW purposes was time when the worker was required to be awake for the purposes of working.

The factual background of Royal Mencap and Shannon

In Royal Mencap, the Claimant (Ms Tomlinson-Blake) had worked as an employee for Mencap since 2004, providing support and care to two vulnerable male adults on behalf of East Riding Yorkshire local council. The Claimant’s usual work pattern involved working a day shift at the men’s house either from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. She would then work the following morning shift, either from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. or from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Those hours were part of her salaried hours and she received appropriate remuneration in relation to them. In addition, the Claimant was required to carry out a sleep-in shift between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. for which she received a flat rate of £22.35 together with one hour’s pay of £6.70. The Claimant argued that she was entitled to have the totality of her hours spent sleeping, counted as time work for NMW purposes.

In Shannon, the Claimant, Mr Shannon, was offered employment by Mr Sparshott in May 1993, as “on-call night care assistant” with accommodation. He was required to be in the studio accommodation from 10p.m. until 7 a.m. He was able to sleep during those hours but was required to respond to any request for assistance by the night care worker on duty at the home. In return he was provided with free accommodation with all utilities provided free of charge, together with a payment of £50 per week. In practice, he was very rarely asked to assist the night care worker. He had day jobs as a driver. The Claimant’s argument was also that he was entitled to have the entirety of the hours between 10 p.m. and 7 p.m. counted as salaried hours work for NMW purposes for 365 days a year. The arrears that he claimed on that basis were calculated to amount to almost £240,000.

The decisions of the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

In Royal Mencap, the ET found that while no specific tasks were allocated to the Claimant during ‘sleep-ins’, she was obliged to remain at the homes throughout the shift and to keep out a ‘listening ear’ in case her support was needed. She was expected to intervene where necessary to deal with incidents that might require her help (for example if one of the men was unwell or distressed). Even though the need to intervene was real but infrequent (the ET found that there were only six occasions over the preceding 16 months when the Claimant had had to get up to intervene during the sleep-in hours), the ET and the EAT, following the decision in Burrow Down Support Services Ltd v Rossiter [2008] UKEAT 592/07, upheld her claim, on the basis that she was actually working for the whole period so that the sleep-in exception did not apply.

In Shannon, the case was argued in the ET and the EAT on the basis that the crucial question was whether during the periods in question the Claimant was actually working, or available for work, and the case-law on that question was expressly considered. The ET and EAT found that he was only available for work, so that regulation 16 (1) and (1A) applied and he was not entitled to the NMW for the entirety of the night shift.

The decision of the CoA

The CoA in Royal Mencap held that on a straightforward reading of the NMW Regulations, workers on sleep-in shifts were only entitled to have their hours counted for NMW purposes when they were (and were required to be) awake for the purpose of performing some specific activity. The CoA held that the Report of the Low Pay Commission which had led to the enactment of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was significant. The Report had recommended that the only time that should count for NMW purposes were periods when workers on a sleep-in shift were “awake and required to be available for work”.

The CoA held that it did not follow from its earlier judgment in British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue [2003] ICR 19 – in which bank nurse booking staff were found to be carrying out work throughout their night shifts – that workers who were expected to sleep on their night shifts were also carrying out work throughout these shifts. It also held that the judgment of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright[2003] IRLR 21 in which a night watchman was held (following British Nursing) to have being working throughout his night shift was confined to its facts.

The CoA stated that the EAT’s conclusion in Burrow Down that workers were actually working throughout their sleep-in shift even if they were sleeping was based on a mistaken understanding of the effect of British Nursing and Scottbridge, was contrary to the clear meaning of the NMW Regulations, and was wrong. Regulation 32 of the 2015 NMW Regulations made it clear, the CoA concluded, that the only hours that count for NMW purposes are those where the worker is required to be awake in order to perform a specific activity.

The CoA also found for the employer in Shannon based on the same reasoning as in Royal Mencap.

In the sole judgment, Lord Justice Underhill therefore overturned a significant body of case-law and held that “sleep-in” residential care workers are only entitled to the NMW when they are awake and “actually working”, not when they are asleep and therefore, he held, simply “available for work”.

Our solicitors’ comments on Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake

Caroline Lewis, specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This judgment will have an enormous impact on the care sector. Care providers concerned about their back pay liabilities will welcome the judgement; the hundreds of thousands of low paid sleep-in workers who might see pay cuts as a result of the decision will be duly concerned at this latest decision and exploitation of such workers may become increasingly rife”.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.72 Average

89 Reviews

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 5 days ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 6 days ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 6 days ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 6 days ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 1 week ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 1 week ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago

Colin W

Very professional and thorough. Sachs who dealt with the bulk of my case was excellent Thank you. .

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was generally impressed with the fast turn around, efficiency, responsiveness, and consideration of circumstances. I needed a couple of areas of advice quickly and with Redmans help was able to get to a conclusion quickly and with minimum stress. They were friendly and professional throughout - I'd use them again.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The guidance and assistance I recently received when using Redman's was fantastic. Caroline & Chris were both very informative and understanding walking me through each step. Thank you.

Posted 2 months ago